CVE-2012-0434
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 · uneditedThe server in Crowbar, as used in SUSE Cloud 1.0, uses weak permissions for the production.log file, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors.
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 · low confidenceThe Crowbar server (used in SUSE Cloud 1.0) stores its production.log file with overly permissive file permissions, allowing unauthorized local users to read potentially sensitive log contents that may contain credentials, session data, or system information.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify if Crowbar server is installedCheck for Crowbar installation on SUSE Cloud 1.0 by querying package manager (rpm -qa | grep crowbar) or checking for Crowbar service processes (ps aux | grep crowbar)Affected if Crowbar server package from SUSE Cloud 1.0 is installed on the system
-
Locate the production.log fileSearch for production.log file in common Crowbar log directories, typically under /var/log/crowbar/ or the Crowbar installation directoryAffected if production.log file exists on the system
-
Check file permissions on production.logRun 'ls -la' on the production.log file to view permissions in octal or rwx formatAffected if Permissions allow read access to users other than the file owner (e.g., mode is 644, 666, or any world-readable setting)
-
Verify file ownershipCheck the owner and group of production.log using 'ls -la' outputAffected if File is owned by a service account but permissions allow unauthorized users to read it
-
Confirm vulnerability conditionCompare current permissions against secure baseline (640 or stricter). If group or other permissions include 'r' (read), the file is vulnerableAffected if Any non-owner user account on the system can read the production.log file contents
User is affected if Crowbar from SUSE Cloud 1.0 is installed and the production.log file has permissions allowing read access by non-owner users (group or world readable).
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 dataConfigure restrictive permissions on the production.log file (e.g., chmod 640 or stricter, owned by the application user) and verify the ownership matches the Crowbar service account.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0434 — 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-2012-0434 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