CVE-2012-1557
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in admin/plib/api-rpc/Agent.php in Parallels Plesk Panel 7.x and 8.x before 8.6 MU#2, 9.x before 9.5 MU#11, 10.0.x before MU#13, 10.1.x before MU#22, 10.2.x before MU#16, and 10.3.x before MU#5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors, as exploited in the wild in March 2012.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in admin/plib/api-rpc/Agent.php in Parallels Plesk Panel allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors. The flaw affects versions 7.x through 10.3.x before specific micro-updates, and was actively exploited in the wild in March 2012.
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= 7.0= 7.6.1= 8.0= 8.1= 8.2= 8.3= 8.4= 8.6= 9.0= 9.2= 9.3= 9.5CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Verify Plesk Panel installation and versionLog into the Plesk admin interface and navigate to 'Server' > 'Version Info' or run the command:plesk versionAffected if The installed version is 7.x, 8.x, 9.x, or 10.0.x through 10.3.x and the corresponding micro-update has not been applied (MU#2 for 8.x, MU#11 for 9.x, MU#13 for 10.0.x, MU#22 for 10.1.x, MU#16 for 10.2.x, MU#5 for 10.3.x)
-
Confirm the vulnerable file existsCheck if the file admin/plib/api-rpc/Agent.php exists on the server by inspecting the Plesk installation directory (typically /usr/local/psa or /opt/psa)Affected if The file admin/plib/api-rpc/Agent.php exists in the Plesk installation directory
-
Determine if api-rpc interface is accessibleTest network access to the /admin/plib/api-rpc/ endpoint on the Plesk server (e.g., https://your-server:8443/admin/plib/api-rpc/ or check if port 8443 is open and responding)Affected if The admin interface or port 8443 is externally accessible without proper network restrictions
-
Check for signs of compromiseReview web server access logs for the api-rpc/Agent.php endpoint for suspicious SQL-like payloads, unusual query patterns, or unexpected POST requestsAffected if Log analysis reveals SQL injection attempts or suspicious queries targeting the api-rpc/Agent.php file
A system is affected if it runs any unpatched Parallels Plesk Panel version 7.x through 10.3.x where the admin/plib/api-rpc/Agent.php file is present and accessible, and the corresponding micro-update has not been applied.
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 the appropriate micro-update for the installed version (MU#2 for 8.x, MU#11 for 9.x, MU#13 for 10.0.x, MU#22 for 10.1.x, MU#16 for 10.2.x, MU#5 for 10.3.x) or upgrade to a patched release. If patching is not feasible, consider restricting access to the admin/plib/api-rpc/ directory via network-level controls.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,848.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1557 — 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-2012-1557 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