CVE-2012-2240
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 · uneditedscripts/dscverify.pl in devscripts before 2.12.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors related to "arguments to external commands."
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 confidenceThe dscverify.pl script in devscripts before version 2.12.3 contains a vulnerability that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands through improper handling of arguments to external commands. The specific attack vector is not detailed, but the vulnerability enables complete compromise of the affected system through the compromised Perl script.
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<= 2.12.2= 2.7.0= 2.8.14= 2.9.21= 2.9.22= 2.9.23= 2.9.24= 2.9.25= 2.9.26= 2.9.27= 2.10.0= 2.10.1CVSS 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.
-
Check if devscripts is installedRun 'dpkg -l devscripts' on Debian/Ubuntu, or 'rpm -q devscripts' on RHEL/CentOS, or 'which dscverify.pl' to locate the scriptAffected if The package or script is not found, indicating devscripts is not installed (not affected). If found, continue to version check.
-
Identify installed devscripts versionRun 'dpkg -s devscripts | grep Version' or 'rpm -qi devscripts | grep Version' to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if Version is 2.12.2 or lower, or matches any of these specific versions: 2.7.0, 2.8.14, 2.9.21, 2.9.22, 2.9.23, 2.9.24, 2.9.25, 2.9.26, 2.9.27, 2.10.0, or 2.10.1
-
Locate the dscverify.pl scriptRun 'which dscverify.pl' or 'find /usr -name dscverify.pl 2>/dev/null' to confirm the vulnerable script is present on the systemAffected if The script exists on the system and the devscripts version is within the affected range, indicating the system is vulnerable to command injection.
The system is affected if devscripts version is 2.12.2 or lower, or matches any of the specific affected versions (2.7.0, 2.8.14, 2.9.21-2.9.27, 2.10.0, 2.10.1) and the dscverify.pl script is present.
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 to devscripts version 2.12.3 or later to remediate this vulnerability. As a high-severity command injection flaw, immediate patching is critical given the remote attack vector and potential for complete system compromise.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2240 — 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-2012-2240 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