CVE-2012-0655
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 · uneditedlibsecurity in Apple Mac OS X before 10.7.4 does not properly restrict the length of RSA keys within X.509 certificates, which makes it easier for remote attackers to defeat cryptographic protection mechanisms by conducting a spoofing or network-sniffing attack during communication with a site that uses a short key.
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 confidencelibsecurity in Apple Mac OS X before 10.7.4 fails to enforce minimum RSA key length requirements when validating X.509 certificates. This allows certificates with cryptographically weak short RSA keys to be accepted, enabling attackers to break the encryption through brute-force or optimized attacks against the insufficient key strength.
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<= 10.7.3= 10.0= 10.0.0= 10.0.1= 10.0.2= 10.0.3= 10.0.4= 10.1= 10.1.0= 10.1.1= 10.1.2= 10.1.3<= 10.7.3= 10.0= 10.0.0= 10.0.1= 10.0.2= 10.0.3= 10.0.4= 10.1= 10.1.0= 10.1.1= 10.1.2= 10.1.3CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 Mac OS X versionRun 'sw_vers -productVersion' in Terminal to obtain the installed OS versionAffected if Version is 10.7.3 or earlier, or falls within 10.0.x through 10.1.x range (10.0, 10.0.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.0.4, 10.1, 10.1.0, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3)
-
Confirm libsecurity is in useThe libsecurity library handles X.509 certificate validation in macOS. This is a built-in component used by applications that validate certificates (e.g., Safari, Mail, any app using SSL/TLS). No explicit enablement needed; verify by checking if any certificate validation occurs on the system.Affected if The system performs X.509 certificate validation (standard in normal macOS usage) while running an affected OS version
-
Verify vulnerability contextThe flaw allows acceptance of X.509 certificates with RSA keys shorter than the minimum secure length (typically 1024 bits or less). Check any certificate validation logs or test with a known weak-RSA certificate if accessible.Affected if Certificates with weak RSA keys (512-bit, 256-bit, etc.) would be accepted without rejection by the system
You are affected if your Mac OS X version is 10.7.3 or earlier, or any 10.0.x/10.1.x version, and the system uses libsecurity for X.509 certificate validation (which is the default behavior).
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 Apple OS X 10.7.4 or later security update, which adds proper RSA key length validation in libsecurity for X.509 certificate processing.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0655 — 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-2012-0655 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