StunnelApplication

CVE-2011-2940

HIGH · 9.3 CVSS v2.0 Published 2011-08-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
stunnel 4.40 and 4.41 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption) via unspecified vectors.

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 confidence

Heap memory corruption vulnerability in stunnel versions 4.40 and 4.41 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service via unspecified vectors. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.3 indicating critical severity.

MitigationUpgrade stunnel to a version beyond 4.41 ( patched versions are available). Given the critical severity and RCE potential, consider implementing network-level access controls as an interim measure while patching is scheduled.

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
StunnelApplication
Affected:= 4.40= 4.41

CVSS 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
Complete
Integrity
Complete
Availability
Complete

AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check if stunnel is installed
    Run 'which stunnel' or 'stunnel -version' to locate the stunnel binary
    Affected if If stunnel command is not found, the system is not affected by this specific vulnerability
  2. Determine installed stunnel version
    Run 'stunnel -version 2>&1' or 'stunnel -version' to display version information
    Affected if The output shows version 4.40 or 4.41 exactly - these are the vulnerable versions
  3. Verify version via package manager
    On Debian/Ubuntu run 'dpkg -l | grep -i stunnel'; on RHEL/CentOS run 'rpm -qa | grep -i stunnel'
    Affected if Package version listed as stunnel-4.40 or stunnel-4.41 confirms the vulnerable version is installed
  4. Check stunnel configuration files
    Inspect configuration files in common locations such as /etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf or /etc/stunnel.conf
    Affected if Configuration presence alone does not indicate vulnerability - version check in step 2 is definitive

A system is affected only if the installed stunnel version is exactly 4.40 or exactly 4.41; any other version (including 4.42 and later) is not vulnerable to this specific CVE.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade stunnel to a version beyond 4.41 ( patched versions are available). Given the critical severity and RCE potential, consider implementing network-level access controls as an interim measure while patching is scheduled.

Recommended fix High confidence

Stunnel 4.42 or later stable release

  1. 1. Identify all systems running Stunnel versions 4.40 or 4.41
  2. 2. Download the fixed Stunnel release from the official source at stunnel.org
  3. 3. Before upgrading, backup the current stunnel configuration files (typically stunnel.conf)
  4. 4. Stop the stunnel service on each affected system
  5. 5. Install the upgraded stunnel package or compile from source
  6. 6. Verify the stunnel service starts successfully with the new version
  7. 7. Test that the stunnel service is properly accepting connections and forwarding traffic
Caveat Review stunnel.conf for any deprecated options between 4.40/4.41 and the target version; configuration syntax has remained largely compatible

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Stunnel Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,120
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,392.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-2940 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-2940 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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