CVE-2011-5239
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 · uneditedCiviCRM 4.0.5 and 4.1.1 does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.
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 confidenceCiviCRM 4.0.5 and 4.1.1 fails to validate the hostname in SSL/TLS certificates by not checking the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName fields against the expected server hostname. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications using a valid certificate from any trusted CA, effectively bypassing SSL protection.
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= 4.0.5= 4.1.1CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify CiviCRM installed versionQuery the civicrm_domain table in the database for the version field, or locate version.php in the CiviCRM installation directory, or access Administer > System Settings > About in the CiviCRM admin interfaceAffected if The installed version is exactly 4.0.5 or exactly 4.1.1
-
Confirm external integrations are configuredReview CiviCRM payment processor settings and external API configurations in the database or via the admin interface at Administer > System Settings > Payment ProcessorsAffected if Any payment processor or external service integration configured to use HTTPS connections is present
-
Verify SSL connections are in useExamine civicrm_setting table or config files for values that indicate HTTPS URLs for payment gateways, external APIs, or webhook endpointsAffected if HTTPS-based integrations with external services are configured and active
The environment is affected if CiviCRM version 4.0.5 or 4.1.1 is installed AND the system uses SSL/TLS connections to external services, which allows MITM attackers to intercept encrypted traffic using any valid trusted CA certificate.
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 CiviCRM that implements proper hostname verification, or if patching is not possible, ensure all connections use certificate pinning or alternative cryptographic verification methods.
- Consultation3.0 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 $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5239 — 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-2011-5239 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