CVE-2011-5240
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 · uneditedMagento 1.5 and 1.6.2 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 confidenceMagento 1.5 and 1.6.2 fail to validate that the server hostname matches the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field during SSL/TLS connections, allowing attackers to intercept encrypted communications using any valid certificate.
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= 1.5= 1.6.2CVSS 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 installed Magento versionLocate the version file or admin panel 'System > Magento Version' section to determine the exact installed versionAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.5 or exactly 1.6.2
-
Examine SSL connection code using stream_socket_clientSearch the codebase for uses of PHP's stream_socket_client function and inspect whether the 'ssl' context array includes 'verify_peer' and 'verify_peer_name' set to true, and whether hostname verification is performed separatelyAffected if stream_socket_client is used without proper 'verify_peer_name' context option or without explicit hostname matching against the certificate
-
Examine SSL connection code using cURLSearch the codebase for cURL-based HTTPS requests and check if CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST is set to 2 (which verifies hostname against the certificate)Affected if cURL is used for HTTPS connections with CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST set to 0 or 1, or not set at all
-
Review custom SSL wrapper implementationsInspect any custom HTTP client classes or wrapper functions that handle HTTPS connections to confirm they perform proper certificate hostname validationAffected if Custom SSL implementations skip hostname verification or only perform basic certificate chain validation without CN/subjectAltName checking
You are affected if your Magento installation is version 1.5 or 1.6.2 AND your codebase contains SSL/TLS connection code that does not verify the server hostname against the certificate's CN or subjectAltName.
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 dataEnsure proper SSL certificate hostname verification is implemented using PHP's stream_socket_client with proper context options or CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST enabled, verifying the certificate matches the expected domain.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5240 — 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-2011-5240 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