CVE-2012-2250
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 · uneditedTor before 0.2.3.24-rc allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) by performing link protocol negotiation incorrectly.
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 confidenceTor before 0.2.3.24-rc contains a vulnerability in its link protocol negotiation handling where remote attackers can send specially crafted negotiation messages that trigger an assertion failure, causing the daemon to exit and resulting in denial of service.
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<= 0.2.3.23= 0.0.2= 0.0.3= 0.0.4= 0.0.5= 0.0.6= 0.0.6.1= 0.0.6.2= 0.0.7= 0.0.7.1= 0.0.7.2= 0.0.7.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Determine installed Tor versionRun `tor --version` or check the installed package (e.g., `dpkg -l | grep tor`, `rpm -q tor`)Affected if The version number is <= 0.2.3.23, or matches any of these: 0.0.2, 0.0.3, 0.0.4, 0.0.5, 0.0.6, 0.0.6.1, 0.0.6.2, 0.0.7, 0.0.7.1, 0.0.7.2, 0.0.7.3
-
Verify Tor daemon is exposed to networkCheck Tor configuration files (torrc) for `ORPort` or `SocksPort` bindings on non-localhost interfaces, or run `netstat -tlnp | grep tor` to see what addresses Tor is listening onAffected if Tor is listening on a public IP address or any interface other than 127.0.0.1, meaning untrusted remote peers can connect
You are affected if you are running any Tor version <= 0.2.3.23 (or one of the specific older versions listed) AND your Tor daemon is accessible to untrusted network peers, as the vulnerability can be triggered by specially crafted link protocol negotiation messages from remote attackers.
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 Tor version 0.2.3.24-rc or later. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, limit exposure of the Tor daemon to untrusted network peers.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2250 — 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-2012-2250 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