CVE-2010-3061
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 message-protocol implementation in the Mount service in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) FastBack 5.x.x before 5.5.7, and 6.1.0.0, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (recovery failure), and possibly trigger loss of data, via unknown vectors.
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 · low confidenceA vulnerability in the Mount service's message-protocol implementation in IBM TSM FastBack versions 5.x before 5.5.7 and 6.1.0.0 allows remote attackers to send crafted messages that cause recovery failures, potentially leading to denial of service and data loss. The exact attack vector and protocol weakness are unspecified in available documentation.
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= 5.5.0= 5.5.1= 5.5.2= 5.5.2.0= 5.5.3.0= 5.5.4.0= 5.5.5.0= 5.5.6.0= 6.1.0.0CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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.
-
Verify IBM TSM FastBack is installedLocate the IBM TSM FastBack software on the system by checking installed programs or common installation directoriesAffected if The software is present on the system
-
Identify the installed versionUse system utilities or the FastBack administrative interface to determine the exact version number of the installed IBM TSM FastBack instanceAffected if The version matches any of these: 5.5.0, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.2.0, 5.5.3.0, 5.5.4.0, 5.5.5.0, 5.5.6.0, or 6.1.0.0
-
Confirm the Mount service is enabledCheck the FastBack configuration to verify whether the Mount service is running and accepting client connectionsAffected if The Mount service is active and network-accessible
The environment is affected if IBM TSM FastBack is installed with a version between 5.5.0 and 6.1.0.0 inclusive and the Mount service is enabled.
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 IBM TSM FastBack to version 5.5.7 or later to remediate this vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider network segmentation to restrict access to the Mount service.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3061 — 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-2010-3061 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