CVE-2010-5334
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 · uneditedIceWarp Webclient before 10.2.1 has a directory traversal vulnerability. This can result in loss of confidential data of IceWarp Mailserver and the operating system. Input passed via a certain parameter (_c to basic/index.html) is not properly sanitised and can therefore be exploited to browse the partition where IceWarp is installed (or the whole system) and read arbitrary files.
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 confidenceIceWarp Webclient before 10.2.1 contains a directory traversal vulnerability in the _c parameter of basic/index.html. The lack of proper input sanitization allows attackers to use path traversal sequences (e.g., ../../) to access arbitrary files outside the intended web root, potentially exposing sensitive operating system and mailserver data.
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>= 10.0, < 10.2.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Verify IceWarp Webclient is installedCheck for IceWarp Webclient installation by searching for the product in your web server's application directory, or look for the 'basic/index.html' file in the web document root under an IceWarp installation path.Affected if IceWarp Webclient files are found on the server
-
Identify installed IceWarp Webclient versionLocate the version information file or check the product's built-in version indicator. Common locations include a version.txt file, the product's main executable, or the web interface itself which may display version information.Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or shows a version < 10.2.1
-
Confirm version falls within affected rangeCompare your installed version against the affected range: versions >= 10.0 and < 10.2.1 are vulnerable.Affected if Installed version is 10.0, 10.1.0, 10.1.1, 10.2.0, or any 10.x version prior to 10.2.1
-
Verify web interface is accessibleTest network connectivity to the IceWarp Webclient web interface (typically on ports 80 or 443). Attempt to access the basic/index.html endpoint.Affected if The web interface is exposed and reachable from a network where an attacker could send requests
You are affected if IceWarp Webclient version 10.0 through 10.2.0 is installed and the web interface is network-accessible, allowing attackers to exploit the _c parameter in basic/index.html via path traversal.
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 data10.2.1
Upgrade IceWarp Webclient to version 10.2.1 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, implement input validation to reject path traversal sequences in the _c parameter and restrict file access to the web document root.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5334 — 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-2010-5334 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