CVE-2011-4747
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 · uneditedThe billing system for Parallels Plesk Panel 10.3.1_build1013110726.09 does not prevent the use of weak ciphers for SSL sessions, which makes it easier for remote attackers to defeat cryptographic protection mechanisms via a crafted CipherSuite list.
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 confidenceThe billing system in Parallels Plesk Panel 10.3.1 allows the use of weak SSL ciphers, enabling remote attackers to force downgrade attacks by presenting crafted CipherSuite lists that select weak cryptographic algorithms instead of stronger ones.
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= 10.3.1_build1013110726.09CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Identify installed Plesk Panel versionAccess the Plesk control panel and navigate to the About section, or run the command 'plesk --version' via CLI to retrieve the exact build numberAffected if The installed version matches 10.3.1_build1013110726.09 exactly
-
Confirm the billing system module is activeLog into the Plesk administrative interface and verify the billing module is enabled under the Applications or Modules sectionAffected if The billing system module is installed and active in the Plesk Panel
-
Check if SSL/TLS is enabled for the billing interfaceInspect the billing system configuration file or administrative settings to determine whether HTTPS/SSL is configured for customer billing accessAffected if SSL/TLS is enabled for the billing system web interface
-
Inspect configured SSL cipher suite listExamine the SSL configuration for the billing system component, looking for the cipher list or cipher suite order setting. This may be in the web server configuration, Plesk configuration files, or billing module settingsAffected if The cipher configuration includes weak or export-grade ciphers such as NULL, RC4, 3DES, or other medium-strength algorithms
-
Test for cipher downgrade susceptibilityAttempt to connect to the billing system HTTPS endpoint using a client configured to offer only weak cipher suites, observing whether the connection succeeds with a weak algorithmAffected if The server accepts and completes the connection using a weak or export-grade cipher
A user is affected if they run Plesk Panel version 10.3.1_build1013110726.09 with the billing system accessible via SSL/TLS and weak ciphers are currently configured or accepted.
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 dataConfigure the billing system's SSL/TLS settings to accept only strong ciphers (e.g., AES-128/AES-256, excluding NULL, export-grade, and medium-strength ciphers like 3DES and RC4).
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4747 — 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-2011-4747 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