CVE-2010-3292

The update{_bad,}_phishing_sites scripts in mailscanner 4.79.11-2 downloads files and trusts them without using encryption (e.g., https) or digital signature checking which could allow an attacker to replace certain configuration files (e.g., phishing whitelist) via dns/packet spoofing.

Published: 2019-11-12 Last update: 2024-11-21 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Modified，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2010-3292 is rated Low Risk (24.3/100): CVSS Medium severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.17%). Monitor for updates and reassess as exploit intelligence or EPSS changes.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2010-3292

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-06-15 0.03% 0.17% +0.14%
2 2025-03-17 0.06% 0.03% -0.03%
3 2024-11-05 — 0.06% —

Full EPSS history (5 records total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2010-3292

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
5.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:L)
They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:L)
A normal user session is enough; they don’t have to be admin.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N)
Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
 1.8 3.6 [email protected]
2.1 2.0 LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P Click to expand
Access vector (AV:L)
Requires local access to the target system.
Access complexity (AC:L)
Exploitation conditions are straightforward and predictable.
Authentication (AU:N)
No authentication is required.
Confidentiality impact (C:N)
No confidentiality impact.
Integrity impact (I:N)
No integrity impact.
Availability impact (A:P)
Partial availability impact.
 3.9 2.9 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2010-3292

OS Trackers for CVE-2010-3292

vendor priority summary link
ubuntu low CVE-2010-3292 low priority: Ubuntu including 1 source packages (mailscanner), 10 status rows across 10 suites (hardy, lucid, maverick, natty, oneiric, precise, quantal, raring, saucy, upstream): DNE 5, ignored 4, needs-triage 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2010-3292

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2010-3292

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
mailscanner mailscanner 4.79.11-2 cpe:2.3:a:mailscanner:mailscanner:4.79.11-2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2010-3292

cvelogic Threat Intelligence