CVE-2012-10058
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 · uneditedRabidHamster R4 v1.25 contains a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability due to unsafe use of sprintf() when logging malformed HTTP requests. A remote attacker can exploit this flaw by sending a specially crafted URI, resulting in arbitrary code execution under the context of the web server process.
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 confidenceRabidHamster R4 v1.25 suffers from a stack-based buffer overflow in its HTTP request logging functionality. The vulnerability stems from the unsafe use of sprintf() to format malformed HTTP request URIs into a fixed-size buffer without bounds checking. A remote attacker can send a specially crafted URI that exceeds the buffer boundaries, overwriting stack memory and achieving arbitrary code execution under the web server process privileges.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
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 RabidHamster R4 is installedSearch for RabidHamster R4 application files on the system. Check common installation directories, program files, or look for the executable/service process named RabidHamster or related components.Affected if RabidHamster R4 software is present on the system
-
Verify the installed versionLocate version information in the application executable properties, about dialog, or version file. Compare the found version to v1.25.Affected if The installed version matches v1.25 or is at or below that version number
-
Confirm HTTP request logging is enabledInspect the application configuration files or settings panel to determine whether the HTTP request logging functionality has been activated.Affected if HTTP request logging feature is currently enabled in the configuration
-
Determine if web server is network-accessibleReview network bindings, firewall rules, or service configuration to check if the RabidHamster web server component is bound to network interfaces accessible to remote attackers.Affected if The web server is listening on network-accessible interfaces rather than localhost only
A system is affected by this vulnerability when RabidHamster R4 v1.25 is installed with HTTP request logging enabled and the web server component accepts remote connections.
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 dataReplace all sprintf() calls in the HTTP request logging code with bounded string functions such as snprintf() or use safer string handling libraries. Additionally, implement input validation to reject URIs exceeding expected length limits before logging.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation5.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-10058 — 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-2012-10058 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