CVE-2007-4174
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 · uneditedTor before 0.1.2.16, when ControlPort is enabled, does not properly restrict commands to localhost port 9051, which allows remote attackers to modify the torrc configuration file, compromise anonymity, and have other unspecified impact via HTTP POST data containing commands without valid authentication, as demonstrated by an HTML form (1) hosted on a web site or (2) injected by a Tor exit node.
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 confidenceTor before 0.1.2.16 with ControlPort enabled on port 9051 does not properly restrict commands to localhost, allowing remote attackers to send unauthenticated HTTP POST commands to modify torrc configuration and compromise anonymity. Attackers can exploit this via malicious HTML forms hosted on websites or injected into Tor exit node traffic.
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<= 0.1.2.15= 0.1.2.1= 0.1.2.2= 0.1.2.3= 0.1.2.4= 0.1.2.5= 0.1.2.6= 0.1.2.7= 0.1.2.8= 0.1.2.9= 0.1.2.10= 0.1.2.11CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Check installed Tor versionRun `tor --version` or check your package manager for the installed tor package versionAffected if Version is 0.1.2.15 or earlier (0.1.2.1 through 0.1.2.15)
-
Locate torrc configuration fileCheck common locations: /etc/tor/torrc, ~/.tor/torrc, or the path specified via -f flag when starting TorAffected if The file exists and ControlPort is configured
-
Verify ControlPort binding addressLook for `ControlPort 9051` or similar in torrc, then check if it is restricted to localhost with `ControlPort 127.0.0.1:9051` or `ControlPort 9051` with `ControlListenAddress 127.0.0.1:9051`Affected if ControlPort is present and bound to 0.0.0.0 or not explicitly bound to 127.0.0.1 only
-
Check for ControlPort authenticationSearch torrc for `CookieAuthentication`, `HashedControlPassword`, or `HashedControlSessionPassword` directivesAffected if No authentication method is configured (all those directives are missing or set to 0)
You are affected if Tor version is 0.1.2.15 or earlier AND ControlPort is enabled without being bound to localhost AND without authentication configured.
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 dataUpgrade to Tor 0.1.2.16 or later, or disable ControlPort if unused. If ControlPort is required, bind it to localhost only and enable authentication.
- 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-2007-4174 — 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-2007-4174 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