CVE-2012-0692
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 · uneditedCA License (aka CA Licensing) before 1.90.03 allows local users to modify or create arbitrary files, and consequently gain privileges, via unspecified 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 · moderate confidenceCA License (CA Licensing) versions prior to 1.90.03 contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability that allows local users to modify or create arbitrary files on the system, leading to elevated privileges. The specific attack vectors are not detailed in the advisory.
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<= 1.90.02= 0.1.0.15= 1.5.3= 1.8.0.110= 1.8.0.114= 1.9.1.105= 1.52= 1.60.3= 1.61.8= 1.61.9= 1.70.1.101CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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 CA License software installationSearch for CA License or CA Licensing software on the system. Look for executables or services named 'ca_licensing', 'ca license', or related processes. Check common installation directories or use system inventory tools.Affected if CA License or CA Licensing software is found on the system
-
Determine installed version of CA LicenseLocate the version information for the CA License installation. This may be found in the software itself, in installed package information, or via a version flag if the software has a command-line interface.Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or the software is present but version information is unavailable
-
Compare installed version against affected versionsTake the installed version number and compare it against the affected versions list: <= 1.90.02; = 0.1.0.15; = 1.5.3; = 1.8.0.110; = 1.8.0.114; = 1.9.1.105; = 1.52; = 1.60.3; = 1.61.8; = 1.61.9; = 1.70.1.101Affected if The installed version matches any version in the affected list or is prior to 1.90.03
If CA License software is installed and the version matches any of the listed affected versions or is lower than 1.90.03, the system is vulnerable to local privilege escalation.
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 dataUpgrade CA License/CA Licensing to version 1.90.03 or later to remediate this vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0692 — 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-2012-0692 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