QpidApplication · Apache
CVE-2011-3620
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 · uneditedApache Qpid 0.12 does not properly verify credentials during the joining of a cluster, which allows remote attackers to obtain access to the messaging functionality and job functionality of a cluster by leveraging knowledge of a cluster-username.
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 confidenceApache Qpid 0.12 fails to properly verify credentials during the cluster join process, allowing remote attackers to authenticate to a Qpid cluster by merely knowing a valid cluster username without providing corresponding valid credentials. This authentication bypass grants access to both messaging and job functionality within the cluster.
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
QpidApplication
= 0.12CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Qpid installation and versionRun 'rpm -q qpid-cpp' or 'dpkg -l qpid-cpp' or check the Qpid broker version via 'qpid-config --version' or inspect the installed package metadataAffected if The installed version is Apache Qpid 0.12 (exact match)
-
Verify cluster configuration is presentLook for cluster-related configuration files or directories such as /etc/qpid/cluster.conf, /var/lib/qpid/cluster, or check qpid configuration for cluster-related settingsAffected if Qpid cluster functionality is configured or enabled in the environment
-
Check for cluster usernamesInspect cluster configuration files for configured cluster usernames or examine /etc/qpid/qdrouterd.conf (or legacy config files) for 'cluster-username' or similar entriesAffected if One or more cluster usernames are defined in the configuration
-
Assess network exposure of cluster join portsReview firewall rules or network configuration to determine if cluster join ports (typically port 5672 for AMQP or cluster-specific ports) are accessible from untrusted networksAffected if Cluster ports are exposed to untrusted or public networks without access controls
You are affected if Apache Qpid version 0.12 is running with cluster functionality enabled and cluster usernames are configured, especially if the cluster join ports are network-accessible.
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 a patched version of Apache Qpid that implements proper credential verification for cluster join operations. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, restrict network access to cluster join ports and monitor for unauthorized cluster membership.
Fix this in Qpid
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-3620 — 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-2011-3620 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