CVE-2010-2967
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 · uneditedThe loginDefaultEncrypt algorithm in loginLib in Wind River VxWorks before 6.9 does not properly support a large set of distinct possible passwords, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via a (1) telnet, (2) rlogin, or (3) FTP session.
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 · high confidenceThe loginDefaultEncrypt algorithm in VxWorks loginLib prior to version 6.9 has insufficient password space, meaning it cannot properly encrypt/distinguish a large number of unique passwords. This weakness allows remote attackers to more easily brute-force or guess credentials when accessing via telnet, rlogin, or FTP services.
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<= 6.8= 5= 5.5= 6= 6.4CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:N/A:N
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 VxWorks versionQuery the system for its VxWorks version using 'vrelease' or check system documentation/banner. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: 5.5, 6, 6.4, or any version <= 6.8Affected if The installed version is 5.5, 6, 6.4, or any version numbered 6.8 or lower
-
Verify loginLib is in useCheck if the system uses loginLib for authentication by examining login configuration files or the running system configuration. Look for references to 'loginDefaultEncrypt' or 'loginLib' in system filesAffected if loginLib with the default loginDefaultEncrypt algorithm is the active authentication mechanism
-
Check if telnet service is enabledInspect running services or network configuration to determine if the telnet daemon is active. This can be done by checking service configuration files or querying the service statusAffected if Telnet service is enabled and accessible on the network
-
Check if rlogin service is enabledInspect running services or network configuration to determine if the rlogin daemon is active. Check service configuration or query the service statusAffected if Rlogin service is enabled and accessible on the network
-
Check if FTP service is enabledInspect running services or network configuration to determine if the FTP daemon is active. Check service configuration or query the service statusAffected if FTP service is enabled and accessible on the network
The environment is affected if VxWorks version is 5.5, 6, 6.4, or <= 6.8 AND any of the vulnerable remote services (telnet, rlogin, or FTP) are enabled and using loginLib authentication.
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 dataUpgrade to VxWorks 6.9 or later which implements a properly designed password encryption algorithm with sufficient entropy. If upgrade is not possible, disable vulnerable remote services (telnet/rlogin/FTP) and use SSH or VPN tunnels for remote access.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2967 — 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-2010-2967 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