dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2012-10040

CRITICAL · 9.4 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-08-11
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Public exploit Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
Openfiler v2.x contains a command injection vulnerability in the system.html page. The device parameter is used to instantiate a NetworkCard object, whose constructor in network.inc calls exec() with unsanitized input. An authenticated attacker can exploit this to execute arbitrary commands as the openfiler user. Due to misconfigured sudoers, the openfiler user can escalate privileges to root via sudo /bin/bash without a password.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-78

User input reaches a shell or system command without being fully separated from the command itself, so an attacker can append their own instructions. Because these run with the application's privileges, it often means full control of the host. The lasting fix is to avoid the shell entirely — call APIs directly and pass arguments as data, never as concatenated strings.

General guidance for the os command injection class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

CVSS 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
Privileges
Low
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 · scoped
Recommended fix Moderate confidence
  1. Since Openfiler v2.x is no longer actively maintained and has no documented security patches, the recommended remediation is to migrate to a supported alternative network-attached storage (NAS) solution such as TrueNAS, OpenMediaVault, or a commercial appliance.
  2. If continued use of Openfiler is unavoidable, manually edit /etc/sudoers to remove the line 'openfiler ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: /bin/bash' or whatever line allows the openfiler user to run bash without a password, using 'visudo' with root privileges.
  3. Implement input validation on any custom code handling the 'device' parameter in network.inc to prevent command injection by escaping or rejecting special shell characters before passing to exec().
  4. Restrict access to the web interface by IP allow-listing to reduce the attack surface for authenticated attackers.
  5. Ensure the Openfiler web application runs with minimal privileges and consider implementing additional authentication layers.
Caveat Openfiler v2.x is unmaintained; there is no supported upgrade path to a fixed release. Migrating to a modern NAS solution will require data migration and potential configuration changes.

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $3,550. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-10040 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-10040 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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