CVE-2010-5338
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: webmail/basic/ with the parameter _dlg[captcha][action] is non-persistent in 10.1.3 and 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 · high confidenceIceWarp Webclient before version 10.2.1 contains a reflected (non-persistent) cross-site scripting vulnerability in the webmail/basic/ endpoint. The flaw exists in the _dlg[captcha][action] POST parameter, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript that executes in victims' browsers when they interact with the captcha dialog functionality.
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
- 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.
-
Identify IceWarp Webclient versionLocate the installed version of IceWarp Webclient by checking the product interface, admin panel, or version file typically included with the installation. Compare the version number against the affected range.Affected if The installed version is 10.0 or any version up to but not including 10.2.1 (e.g., 10.0.x, 10.1.x, 10.2.0).
-
Confirm webmail Basic endpoint is accessibleVerify that the /webmail/basic/ endpoint is accessible on the IceWarp server by attempting to access it via HTTP or HTTPS.Affected if The endpoint responds and is reachable over the network.
-
Verify captcha functionality is enabledCheck whether the captcha feature within the webmail Basic interface is currently enabled in the IceWarp configuration or admin settings.Affected if Captcha is enabled and functional in the webmail/basic/ interface.
-
Test XSS in captcha action parameterSend a POST request to webmail/basic/ with a crafted _dlg[captcha][action] parameter containing a test script payload (e.g., <script>alert(1)</script>) and observe if it is reflected unsanitized in the response.Affected if The submitted script payload is reflected in the response without proper encoding or sanitization.
The environment is affected if IceWarp Webclient version is 10.0 or higher but below 10.2.1, the webmail/basic/ endpoint is accessible, the captcha feature is enabled, and unsanitized input in the captcha action parameter is reflected in the response.
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 to obtain the vendor patch for this XSS vulnerability. Until upgraded, sanitize user input in the captcha action parameter and consider disabling the affected feature if possible.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5338 — 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-2010-5338 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