CVE-2010-5111
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 buffer overflows in readline.c in Echoping 6.0.2 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted reply in the (1) TLS_readline or (2) SSL_readline function, related to the EchoPingHttps Smokeping probe.
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 confidenceEchoping 6.0.2 contains buffer overflow vulnerabilities in readline.c within the TLS_readline and SSL_readline functions. Remote attackers can send crafted TLS/SSL responses that overflow buffers, potentially allowing denial of service via crash or arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability specifically affects the EchoPingHttps Smokeping probe integration.
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= 6.0.2CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Check if Echoping is installedRun 'echoping -v' or 'which echoping' to locate the binary and determine the installed versionAffected if Echoping version is 6.0.2 exactly
-
Identify Smokeping configuration using EchopingLook for Smokeping configuration files (typically in /etc/smokeping/config.d/ or /etc/smokeping.conf) and search for 'EchoPingHttps' or 'Echoping' entries that define probe typesAffected if Smokeping is configured to use EchoPingHttps probe which invokes Echoping for TLS/SSL connections
-
Verify Echoping binary path in SmokepingInspect Smokeping config for 'binary' or 'path' directives under EchoPingHttps probe definitions to confirm Echoping is being calledAffected if Echoping is configured as the binary for Smokeping HTTPS probing
-
Confirm TLS/SSL functionality is in useReview the EchoPingHttps probe configuration to verify it is actively making TLS/SSL connections to remote hosts (check for 'host' or 'target' entries)Affected if The EchoPingHttps probe is configured with target hosts and will invoke TLS_readline/SSL_readline functions in readline.c during operation
You are affected if Echoping version 6.0.2 is installed and Smokeping is configured to use the EchoPingHttps probe, as this combination triggers the vulnerable TLS_readline/SSL_readline code paths in readline.c when making TLS/SSL connections.
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 Echoping to a patched version if available, or implement network segmentation/firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted remote TLS/SSL servers. Input validation on received data before buffer operations can also mitigate this vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5111 — 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-2010-5111 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