CVE-2010-2930
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 · uneditedMultiple stack-based buffer overflows in hsolinkcontrol in hsolink 1.0.118 allow local users to gain privileges via long command-line arguments, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-1671. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
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 confidenceMultiple stack-based buffer overflows in the hsolinkcontrol command-line tool of hsolink version 1.0.118 allow local unprivileged users to execute arbitrary code or gain elevated privileges by supplying overly long command-line arguments. This is a local privilege escalation vulnerability distinct from CVE-2010-1671.
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= 1.0.118CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/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.
-
Locate the hsolinkcontrol binarySearch for the hsolinkcontrol executable on the system using commands such as: find / -name hsolinkcontrol -type f 2>/dev/null, or check common installation directories like /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, or /opt/hsolink/Affected if The binary is not found, meaning hsolink is not installed and the system is not affected.
-
Identify the installed hsolink versionRun hsolinkcontrol with a version flag if available, for example: hsolinkcontrol --version, or check the package metadata using the system package manager (dpkg -l | grep hsolink, rpm -qa | grep hsolink, or similar).Affected if The version is 1.0.118, indicating the installed version matches the affected version.
-
Confirm binary permissions and ownershipInspect the permissions of the hsolinkcontrol binary using: ls -la /path/to/hsolinkcontrol. Check whether the binary is owned by root and has the setuid bit, and examine whether unprivileged users have execute permissions.Affected if The binary is setuid root or executable by unprivileged users, creating a condition where local users could exploit the buffer overflow to escalate privileges.
A system is affected if hsolinkcontrol from hsolink version 1.0.118 is installed and accessible to unprivileged local users, as they could supply overly long arguments to trigger the stack-based buffer overflow for privilege escalation.
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 dataUpdate hsolink to a patched version if available; otherwise restrict local access to trusted users only and run hsolinkcontrol with minimal privileges to reduce the attack surface for local privilege escalation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2930 — 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-2010-2930 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