CVE-2012-0070
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 · uneditedspamdyke prior to 4.2.1: STARTTLS reveals plaintext
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 confidencespamdyke before 4.2.1 contains a STARTTLS stripping vulnerability where a man-in-the-middle attacker can remove or intercept the STARTTLS capability advertisement, forcing plaintext communication between SMTP servers even when both endpoints support TLS encryption, thereby exposing email content in transit.
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< 4.2.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check spamdyke installed versionRun 'spamdyke --version' or query the package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q spamdyke', 'dpkg -l spamdyke', or check /var/qmail/control/spamdyke* files)Affected if The reported version is less than 4.2.1
-
Verify spamdyke is active in SMTP pathInspect the SMTP server configuration to confirm spamdyke is in the delivery path (check qmail-smtpd run scripts, /var/qmail/control/ or similar configuration directories for spamdyke directives)Affected if spamdyke is actively intercepting SMTP connections
-
Confirm STARTTLS capability handlingReview spamdyke configuration files for directives related to TLS/STARTTLS (typically in /etc/spamdyke.conf or /var/qmail/control/spamdyke*.conf)Affected if STARTTLS-related configuration is present and spamdyke version is vulnerable
-
Test actual STARTTLS behaviorConnect to the SMTP server and observe whether STARTTLS is properly advertised and accepted when spamdyke is in the path (e.g., using telnet or openssl s_client to port 25)Affected if STARTTLS is stripped or not properly relayed when both endpoints support encryption
A user is affected if spamdyke version 4.2.1 or higher is not installed and spamdyke is actively handling SMTP connections with STARTTLS capability.
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 data4.2.1
Upgrade spamdyke to version 4.2.1 or later, which contains the fix for this STARTTLS handling vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0070 — 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-2012-0070 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