CVE-2011-5242
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 · uneditedtmhOAuth before 0.61 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 confidencetmhOAuth versions prior to 0.61 fail to validate that the SSL server's hostname matches the domain name in the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted traffic by presenting a valid but unrelated SSL certificate, bypassing the fundamental security guarantee of HTTPS.
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<= 0.60= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.11= 0.12= 0.13= 0.14= 0.51= 0.52= 0.53CVSS 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.
-
Locate tmhOAuth in your codebaseSearch for files named tmhOAuth.php, tmh-oauth, or entries in composer.json, package.json, or other dependency management files that reference tmhOAuthAffected if tmhOAuth is present in your project dependencies or code
-
Identify the installed tmhOAuth versionCheck the version number in the tmhOAuth library file header, composer.json require section, or your lock file; look for a version string like '0.x' in the library's main fileAffected if The version is 0.60 or lower, or specifically 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.51, 0.52, or 0.53
-
Verify your code uses tmhOAuth for HTTPS connectionsSearch your codebase for calls to tmhOAuth methods such as tmhOAuth->request() or tmhOAuth->user_request() with URLs starting with https://Affected if Your code uses tmhOAuth to make HTTPS requests to external APIs such as Twitter
-
Check if custom SSL verification existsInspect the tmhOAuth configuration array for 'ssl_verifypeer' set to false, or review if any custom CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST or CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER overrides are applied before making requestsAffected if SSL verification is disabled or no hostname verification is implemented in your code
You are affected if your project uses tmhOAuth version 0.60 or earlier to make HTTPS requests, as the library does not validate that the certificate hostname matches the target server.
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 tmhOAuth to version 0.61 or later which implements proper certificate hostname verification. If upgrading is not possible, consider implementing custom hostname verification or using an alternative OAuth library.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5242 — 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-2011-5242 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