FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2010-5304
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 · uneditedA NULL pointer dereference flaw was found in the way LibVNCServer before 0.9.9 handled certain ClientCutText message. A remote attacker could use this flaw to crash the VNC server by sending a specially crafted ClientCutText message from a VNC client.
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 confidenceA NULL pointer dereference vulnerability in LibVNCServer before version 0.9.9 allows remote attackers to crash the VNC server via specially crafted ClientCutText messages. The flaw occurs in the ClientCutText message handling code, which fails to properly validate input before dereferencing a pointer.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 19= 20= 21< 0.9.9CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 LibVNCServer is installedOn Fedora systems run: rpm -qa | grep -i libvncserver. On Debian systems run: dpkg -l | grep -i libvncserver. Or examine library files directly: ls -la /usr/lib*/libvncserver*Affected if If no LibVNCServer package or library files are found, the system is not affected by this CVE
-
Determine the installed LibVNCServer versionRun: rpm -q libvncserver (Fedora) or: dpkg -s libvncserver (Debian). Alternatively, check the library file version with: file /usr/lib*/libvncserver.so*Affected if The system is potentially affected if the version is lower than 0.9.9, or if the package query returns no version information prior to 0.9.9
-
Identify if a VNC server using LibVNCServer is runningCheck for active VNC processes: ps aux | grep -i vnc, or check listening ports: netstat -tlnp | grep -E '590[0-9]|VNC'Affected if The vulnerability is only exploitable when a VNC server binary linked to the affected LibVNCServer library is actively running and accessible on the network
A system is affected only if LibVNCServer version is below 0.9.9 AND a VNC server process using that library is running and network-reachable, enabling specially crafted ClientCutText messages to reach the service
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 data0.9.9
Upgrade LibVNCServer to version 0.9.9 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider network-level controls limiting VNC access to trusted clients only.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5304 — 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-2010-5304 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