CVE-2019-10059
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 · uneditedThe legacy finger service (TCP port 79) is enabled by default on various older Lexmark devices.
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 confidenceThe legacy finger service on TCP port 79 is enabled by default on older Lexmark devices. This service can expose user account information such as usernames and potentially other system details to unauthenticated remote attackers on the network.
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<= lw71.vyl.p233<= lw71.vy2.p233<= lw71.gm2.p233<= lw71.prl.p233<= lw71.prl.p233<= lw71.prl.p233<= lw71.prl.p233<= lw71.prl.p233CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Identify the Lexmark device modelAccess the device web interface or check the network inventory to determine the exact model number (Cs31x, Cs41x, Cx310, Ms310, Ms312, Ms317, Ms410, or M1140)Affected if The device model is one of the affected models listed in the CVE
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device administrative interface and navigate to the firmware or version information page, or use the embedded web server status page to retrieve the firmware build string (such as lw71.vyl.p233, lw71.vy2.p233, lw71.gm2.p233, or lw71.prl.p233)Affected if The firmware version is at or below the specified version for your model (e.g., lw71.prl.p233 for Ms310/Ms312/Ms317/Ms410/M1140)
-
Verify TCP port 79 is listeningUse a network port scanner (such as nmap) or netcat to check if port 79 is open on the device IP address: nmap -p 79 <device_ip> or nc -zv <device_ip> 79Affected if TCP port 79 returns as open or filtered on the device
-
Test the finger service responseConnect to port 79 using a finger client or telnet: telnet <device_ip> 79 or echo "" | nc <device_ip> 79 and observe if user account information or system details are returnedAffected if The service responds with user account data or system information without authentication
The device is affected if it is one of the listed models, runs firmware at or below the specified version, and TCP port 79 is open and responds with user information.
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 dataDisable the finger service on affected devices via the administrative interface, or block TCP port 79 at the network perimeter to prevent external access.
- 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-2019-10059 — 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-2019-10059 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