CVE-2012-2152
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in the get_packet method in socket.c in dhcpcd 3.2.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long packet.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in dhcpcd 3.2.3's get_packet method in socket.c occurs when processing DHCP packets without proper length validation before copying data into a fixed-size stack buffer. A specially crafted long packet can overflow this buffer, enabling remote attackers to cause denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary 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= 3.2.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify if dhcpcd is installed and retrieve its versionRun 'dhcpcd --version' or check your package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q dhcpcd', 'dpkg -l dhcpcd', 'pacman -Q dhcpcd') to determine the installed version of dhcpcdAffected if The installed version is exactly 3.2.3
-
Verify dhcpcd daemon is actively runningCheck running processes for dhcpcd: 'ps aux | grep dhcpcd' or 'systemctl status dhcpcd' (or 'service dhcpcd status' on older systems)Affected if dhcpcd daemon is running and actively handling DHCP requests on any interface
-
Confirm network interfaces are using dhcpcd for DHCPInspect active network interfaces using DHCP: run 'ip addr show' or 'ifconfig -a' and look for interfaces in 'inet' state obtained via DHCP, or check dhcpcd runtime status with 'dhcpcd -U <interface>'Affected if Any network interface is configured to obtain IP addresses via dhcpcd (the vulnerable get_packet function processes incoming DHCP packets on these interfaces)
-
Inspect dhcpcd configuration for active interfacesCheck /etc/dhcpcd.conf and look for interface configurations, or check /var/lib/dhcpcd/ for lease files indicating active DHCP usageAffected if dhcpcd.conf contains active interface definitions (such as 'interface eth0') enabling DHCP client functionality
You are affected if dhcpcd version 3.2.3 is installed AND the daemon is actively running and handling DHCP requests on one or more network interfaces, triggering the vulnerable get_packet code path in socket.c.
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 dhcpcd to a patched version that implements proper packet length validation in the get_packet function. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, restrict network access to trusted DHCP servers or implement network-level filtering to limit DHCP packet sizes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2152 — 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-2012-2152 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