CVE-2010-4225
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 mod_mono module for XSP in Mono 2.8.x before 2.8.2 allows remote attackers to obtain the source code for .aspx (ASP.NET) applications via unknown vectors related to an "unloading bug."
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 an information disclosure vulnerability in Mono's mod_mono module for XSP (ASP.NET server). The 'unloading bug' allows remote attackers to retrieve the source code of .aspx pages instead of having them processed as normal. This occurs because the module fails to properly unload application resources, exposing raw source code to attackers.
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= 2.8= 2.8.1CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Check if Mono is installedRun 'mono --version' or check for /usr/lib/mono or /opt/mono directoriesAffected if Mono is not installed or the command fails - not affected by this specific Mono vulnerability
-
Determine the installed Mono versionRun 'mono --version' and note the version number (e.g., 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.10.x)Affected if Version is 2.8 or 2.8.1 exactly - these are the affected versions per the CVE
-
Check if mod_mono or XSP server is in useLook for mod_mono Apache configuration, or check for xsp or xsp4 processes running (ps aux | grep xsp), or look for Mono.AspNet moniker in deployed applicationsAffected if mod_mono or XSP is not being used - the vulnerability requires these components to be exposed
-
Verify .aspx handling is enabledCheck server configuration for .aspx MIME type handling, or test accessing a known .aspx page to see if it returns processed output vs raw sourceAffected if The server processes .aspx files - this is the condition where the unloading bug can expose source code instead of rendered output
You are affected if you are running Mono version 2.8 or 2.8.1 AND using mod_mono or XSP to serve .aspx pages, as this combination allows the information disclosure flaw to be triggered.
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 Mono to version 2.8.2 or later to patch the unloading bug. If immediate patching is not possible, consider restricting network access to the XSP server or implementing web server-level controls to prevent direct access to unauthenticated .aspx endpoints.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-4225 — 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-2010-4225 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