CVE-2012-0539
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in Oracle Sun Solaris 8, 9, and 10 allows local users to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to (1) bsmconv and (2) bsmunconv.
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 · moderate confidenceLocal privilege escalation vulnerability in Oracle Solaris 8, 9, and 10 affecting the Basic Security Module conversion utilities bsmconv and bsmunconv. The unspecified vulnerability allows local users to impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability, likely through improper privilege handling or file manipulation during BSM audit configuration.
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= 5.8= 5.9= 5.10CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:H/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 the Solaris versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the installed Solaris versionAffected if The version is SunOS 5.8, 5.9, or 5.10 (Solaris 8, 9, or 10)
-
Verify BSM audit subsystem statusCheck if Basic Security Module is enabled by looking for the presence of /etc/security/audit_* files or running 'audit -s' to query the audit statusAffected if BSM audit is enabled (the bsmconv utility would have been run to enable it)
-
Locate and inspect bsmconv and bsmunconv utilitiesFind these scripts using 'which bsmconv bsmunconv' or 'ls -la /etc/security/bsmconv /etc/security/bsmunconv' and check their permissionsAffected if These BSM conversion scripts exist and are executable by unprivileged users
-
Check for unauthorized audit configuration changesReview /etc/security/audit_control, /etc/security/audit_user files and check for any unexpected modifications using 'ls -la /etc/security/audit*'Affected if Audit configuration files have been modified by unauthorized users or show unexpected ownership
-
Examine system logs for bsmconv/bsmunconv executionSearch audit logs (e.g., 'grep -i bsmconv /var/audit/*' or 'lastcomm bsmconv') and system logs for recent execution of these utilitiesAffected if There are log entries showing bsmconv or bsmunconv were run by unexpected users or at unusual times
You are affected if running Solaris 8, 9, or 10 with BSM audit enabled and the bsmconv/bsmunconv scripts are accessible to unprivileged local users.
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 dataApply Oracle's security patches for this CVE; if patches are unavailable (end-of-life versions), restrict local user access to these utilities and monitor for suspicious bsmconv/bsmunconv execution. Consider migrating to supported Solaris versions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0539 — 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-2012-0539 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