dbcve.org
GlibApplication · Gnome

CVE-2012-0039

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2012-01-14
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 2.31.8 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
GLib 2.31.8 and earlier, when the g_str_hash function is used, computes hash values without restricting the ability to trigger hash collisions predictably, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via crafted input to an application that maintains a hash table. NOTE: this issue may be disputed by the vendor; the existence of the g_str_hash function is not a vulnerability in the library, because callers of g_hash_table_new and g_hash_table_new_full can specify an arbitrary hash function that is appropriate for the application.

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 confidence

GLib's g_str_hash function lacks hash randomization, allowing attackers to craft inputs that predictably trigger hash collisions. This enables hash flooding DoS attacks where CPU consumption spikes dramatically when an attacker feeds colliding keys into hash tables using the default string hash function.

MitigationEither upgrade to a GLib version with randomized hashing, or for legacy systems, replace g_str_hash with a randomized hash function when creating hash tables via g_hash_table_new/g_hash_table_new_full, and audit existing code for vulnerable hash table usage.

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
GlibApplication
Affected:<= 2.31.8= 1.1.12= 1.1.12-1= 1.1.15= 1.2.0= 1.2.1= 1.2.2= 1.2.3= 1.2.4= 1.2.5= 1.2.6= 1.2.7

CVSS 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
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed GLib version
    Run 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' or check /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so version, or 'rpm -q glib2' / 'dpkg -l libglib2.0-0' depending on OS
    Affected if Version is 2.31.8 or lower, or one of: 1.1.12, 1.1.12-1, 1.1.15, 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, or 1.2.7
  2. Find hash table usage in application code
    Search source code for calls to g_hash_table_new or g_hash_table_new_full, and check what hash function is passed as the first argument
    Affected if Code uses g_hash_table_new or g_hash_table_new_full with g_str_hash as the hash function (or NULL which defaults to g_str_hash)
  3. Identify GLib header file version
    Check /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib.h or the glibversion.h header for the GLIB_VERSION macros
    Affected if The macros indicate a version matching the affected ranges above
  4. Verify hash function in compiled binaries
    Use 'nm' or 'objdump' to inspect symbols in compiled binaries linked against the system GLib, looking for g_hash_table_new calls, or use 'ldd' to see which GLib version is loaded
    Affected if Binary links against an affected GLib version and uses hash table functions

You are affected if your system runs a GLib version in the affected list AND your applications use hash tables created with the default g_str_hash function (or NULL) via g_hash_table_new or g_hash_table_new_full.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 2.31.8
Interim mitigation

Either upgrade to a GLib version with randomized hashing, or for legacy systems, replace g_str_hash with a randomized hash function when creating hash tables via g_hash_table_new/g_hash_table_new_full, and audit existing code for vulnerable hash table usage.

Fix this in Glib Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0039 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-0039 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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