CVE-2010-5336
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 XSS via an HTTP POST request: admin/login.html with the parameter username is persistent in 10.2.0.
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 confidenceIceWarp Webclient before version 10.2.1 contains a stored (persistent) cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the admin/login.html page. The username parameter in HTTP POST requests is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript that executes when administrators access the login page.
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< 10.2.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Locate IceWarp Webclient installationSearch for IceWarp installation directories or check running web services on common ports (80, 443, 8080). Look for directories named 'IceWarp', 'webclient', or 'mail' on the file system.Affected if IceWarp Webclient software is present on the system
-
Identify installed versionCheck the version of IceWarp Webclient by examining the application itself, version file, or the web interface banner. Common methods include reviewing the application's 'about' page, a version.txt file in the installation directory, or the HTTP Server header response.Affected if Installed version is lower than 10.2.1
-
Verify vulnerable page existsConfirm the presence of the admin/login.html page in the web root directory. This file is typically found in the '/admin/' subdirectory of the IceWarp Webclient installation.Affected if The admin/login.html page exists and is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS
-
Check for XSS indicators in admin access logsReview web server access logs for the admin/login.html page. Look for POST requests to the login endpoint with unusual characters (<, >, script, javascript:) in the username parameter.Affected if Suspicious payloads appear in login logs, indicating possible prior exploitation
You are affected if IceWarp Webclient version 10.2.1 or lower is installed and the admin/login.html interface is accessible on your network.
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 and output encoding on the username parameter in the login form.
- 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-2010-5336 — 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-2010-5336 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