CVE-2012-0211
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 · unediteddebdiff.pl in devscripts 2.10.x before 2.10.69 and 2.11.x before 2.11.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted tarball file name in the top-level directory of an original (.orig) source tarball of a source package.
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 confidenceThe debdiff.pl script in devscripts versions 2.10.x before 2.10.69 and 2.11.x before 2.11.4 lacks proper sanitization of filenames when processing .orig source tarballs, allowing injection of arbitrary commands through a crafted tarball filename in the top-level directory.
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= 2.10.0= 2.10.1= 2.10.3= 2.10.6= 2.10.7= 2.10.8= 2.10.9= 2.10.10= 2.10.11= 2.10.12= 2.10.13= 2.10.14CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 if devscripts package is installedRun 'dpkg -l devscripts' or 'dpkg -s devscripts' to see if the package is presentAffected if The package is not installed or the command fails
-
Determine the installed devscripts versionRun 'debdiff --version' or 'dpkg -l devscripts' and note the version number (e.g., 2.10.x or 2.11.x)Affected if Version cannot be determined or is not in the devscripts 2.10.x or 2.11.x series
-
Compare the installed version against vulnerable rangesCheck if the version is 2.10.0 through 2.10.68 (any 2.10.x before 2.10.69) or 2.11.0 through 2.11.3 (any 2.11.x before 2.11.4)Affected if The installed version falls within 2.10.0-2.10.68 or 2.11.0-2.11.3
-
Verify debdiff.pl script is availableRun 'which debdiff' or check for /usr/bin/debdiffAffected if The debdiff script exists and is executable on the system
A user is affected if devscripts is installed with a version in the 2.10.0-2.10.68 or 2.11.0-2.11.3 range and the debdiff.pl script is present and executable.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade devscripts to version 2.10.69 or later (2.10.x) or 2.11.4 or later (2.11.x), and avoid processing untrusted or third-party tarballs with debdiff.pl until the upgrade is applied.
devscripts >= 2.10.69 (for 2.10.x branch) or devscripts >= 2.11.4 (for 2.11.x branch)
- Identify the current installed version of devscripts using: dpkg -l | grep devscripts or apt-cache policy devscripts
- For Debian-based systems, update the package list: sudo apt-get update
- Upgrade devscripts to the fixed version: sudo apt-get install devscripts
- For Debian squeeze/lts systems, ensure backports or security repositories are enabled to receive version 2.10.69 or later
- Verify the installed version after upgrade: dpkg -l | grep devscripts
- Ensure the version is >= 2.10.69 or >= 2.11.4 depending on your branch
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0211 — 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-2012-0211 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