CVE-2012-1115
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 · uneditedA Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in LDAP Account Manager (LAM) Pro 3.6 in the export, add_value_form, and dn parameters to cmd.php.
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 confidenceLDAP Account Manager Pro 3.6 contains a reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in cmd.php. The 'export', 'add_value_form', and 'dn' parameters do not properly sanitize user input before reflecting it back in the HTTP response, allowing injection of arbitrary JavaScript code.
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= 8.0= 9.0= 16= 17= 18= 3.6CVSS 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
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify LDAP Account Manager installationLocate the LAM installation on the system. Common paths include /usr/share/lam, /var/www/html/lam, or a custom web root directory. Check for the presence of cmd.php in the web-accessible directory.Affected if cmd.php exists in the LAM web directory and the application is running LDAP Account Manager version 3.6
-
Determine the installed LAM versionCheck the version information file in the LAM installation directory. This is typically found in a version.php file, a README, or the main index file. Compare the version number to the affected range.Affected if The installed version is LDAP Account Manager 3.6 exactly, as specified in the affected products
-
Check if LAM is installed via system package managerFor Debian systems, run: dpkg -l | grep ldap-account-manager. For Fedora systems, run: rpm -qa | grep ldap-account-manager. This identifies if LAM was installed through system packages.Affected if The package version matches 3.6 on Fedora 16, 17, or 18, or on Debian 8.0 or 9.0
-
Inspect HTTP handling for vulnerable parametersReview the LAM configuration and access logs to determine if the application processes user input through the cmd.php script using the 'export', 'add_value_form', or 'dn' parameters.Affected if The application processes these parameters without input validation, indicating the XSS vulnerability is present
A system is affected if LDAP Account Manager version 3.6 is installed and the cmd.php script is accessible, as the reflected XSS vulnerability exists in the handling of the 'export', 'add_value_form', and 'dn' parameters.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and output encoding for the 'export', 'add_value_form', and 'dn' parameters in cmd.php. Use context-appropriate encoding (HTML entity encoding for displayed content) and consider implementing Content Security Policy headers.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1115 — 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-2012-1115 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