CVE-2010-5291
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 · uneditedAmberdms Billing System (ABS) before 1.4.1 does not properly implement blacklisting after detection of invalid login attempts, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via a brute-force approach.
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 confidenceAmberdms Billing System (ABS) before version 1.4.1 fails to properly implement blacklisting after detecting invalid login attempts, allowing attackers to bypass brute-force protections and repeatedly attempt credential guessing without being blocked.
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<= 1.4.0= 1.0.0= 1.1.0= 1.2.0= 1.3.0CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 Amberdms Billing System installationLocate the Amberdms Billing System installation directory or access the web application. Common paths may include /var/www/, /home/, or the web root. Look for files named 'abs' or directories containing 'billing' in the name.Affected if The product is Amberdms Billing System (ABS)
-
Determine installed versionCheck for a version file or configuration file within the installation. Look for files named version.php, config.php, or an 'about' page within the application. The version may also be displayed in the application footer or an admin panel.Affected if Version is 1.4.0 or earlier, or specifically 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, or 1.3.0
-
Locate login handling codeExamine the source code files related to authentication, typically found in directories named 'login', 'auth', 'session', or similar within the installation. Look for files handling login validation.Affected if Login handling code exists in the application
-
Verify blacklisting implementationReview the login handling code for logic that blocks or blacklists accounts or IP addresses after multiple failed login attempts. Search for variables or functions related to 'failed_attempts', 'lockout', 'ban', or 'blacklist'. Compare the logic against version 1.4.1 if reference code is available.Affected if No functional blacklisting or lockout mechanism exists after detecting invalid login attempts
A user is affected if Amberdms Billing System is installed and the version is 1.4.0 or earlier, and no external IP-based rate limiting or account lockout policies are in place at the network level.
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 ABS version 1.4.1 or later which implements proper blacklisting. As an interim measure, implement external IP-based rate limiting or account lockout policies at the firewall or network level to mitigate brute-force attempts.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5291 — 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-2010-5291 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