Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2011-3596
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 · uneditedPolipo before 1.0.4.1 suffers from a DoD vulnerability via specially-crafted HTTP POST / PUT request.
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 confidencePolipo, a caching HTTP proxy server, versions before 1.0.4.1 contain a Denial of Service vulnerability that can be triggered by specially-crafted HTTP POST or PUT requests, causing the service to crash or become unresponsive.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0= 10.0< 1.0.4.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 if Polipo is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep polipo' on Debian systems, or check for the binary at /usr/sbin/polipo or /usr/bin/polipo using 'which polipo'Affected if If polipo package or binary is present, the system may be affected
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'polipo -v' or 'polipo --version' to get the exact version numberAffected if If the version is below 1.0.4.1, the system is affected
-
Verify if Polipo service is runningRun 'ps aux | grep polipo' or check service status with 'systemctl status polipo' if systemd is usedAffected if If the service is running, it can be exploited
-
Check network listening statusRun 'netstat -tlnp | grep polipo' or 'ss -tlnp | grep polipo' to see which interfaces the proxy is listening onAffected if If listening on 0.0.0.0 or publicly accessible IP (not 127.0.0.1), the vulnerability is remotely exploitable
The environment is affected if Polipo version is below 1.0.4.1 and the service is running and accessible over the network.
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 data1.0.4.1
Upgrade Polipo to version 1.0.4.1 or later to patch the vulnerability; if upgrade is not possible, restrict unauthenticated access to the proxy service via firewall rules or authentication.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-3596 — 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-2011-3596 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