CVE-2010-2632
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in the FTP Server in Oracle Solaris 8, 9, 10, and 11 Express allows remote attackers to affect availability. NOTE: the previous information was obtained from the January 2011 CPU. Oracle has not commented on claims from a reliable researcher that this is an issue in the glob implementation in libc that allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via crafted glob expressions that do not match any pathnames.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThis is a denial of service vulnerability in the FTP Server component of Oracle Solaris 8-11 Express. The vulnerability exists in the glob() function in libc, where remote authenticated users can trigger excessive CPU and memory consumption by sending crafted glob expressions that match no pathnames, causing the glob function to consume resources while processing the invalid patterns.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 5.8= 5.9= 5.10= 5.11CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the Oracle Solaris versionRun `uname -a` or check `/etc/release` to determine the exact Solaris versionAffected if The version is 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, or 5.11 (Solaris 8, 9, 10, or 11 Express)
-
Verify the FTP server daemon is runningRun `svcs -a | grep ftp` for SMF-managed systems, or check for the in.ftpd process using `ps -ef | grep ftpd`Affected if The FTP server daemon (in.ftpd) is active and accepting connections
-
Confirm FTP service is enabledUse `inetadm | grep ftp` to check if the FTP service is enabled in inetd/xinetd, or check `/etc/inetd.conf` for FTP entryAffected if FTP service is enabled and accessible to remote users
-
Check if anonymous or user FTP access is permittedReview FTP server configuration files such as `/etc/ftpd/ftpd.conf` or `/etc/ftpusers` to determine authentication settingsAffected if Remote authenticated users can log in and send commands to the FTP server
You are affected if you run Solaris 8, 9, 10, or 11 Express with the FTP server enabled and accessible to remote authenticated users who can trigger the vulnerable glob() function with crafted patterns.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply the Oracle Critical Patch Update from January 2011 or later. Additionally, consider restricting FTP access to trusted users and implementing network-level rate limiting to reduce the attack surface.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2632 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-2632 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data