CVE-2012-2320
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 · uneditedConnMan before 0.85 does not ensure that netlink messages originate from the kernel, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and cause a denial of service via a crafted netlink message.
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 confidenceConnMan before 0.85 fails to verify that incoming netlink messages actually originate from the Linux kernel, allowing an attacker to send crafted netlink messages that appear to come from the kernel. This bypasses access control checks and can cause denial of service by manipulating network configuration or disrupting connectivity.
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<= 0.84= 0.1= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.6= 0.7= 0.8= 0.9= 0.10= 0.11CVSS 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
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 ConnMan installationRun 'connmanctl --version' or check the package manager (dpkg -l | grep connman, rpm -qa | grep connman, or similar) to determine the installed version of ConnManAffected if The installed version is 0.84 or lower, or any version from 0.1 to 0.11 as listed in affected versions
-
Verify ConnMan service is runningCheck if the connmand or connman service is active using 'systemctl status connman' or 'ps aux | grep connman'Affected if ConnMan is actively running as a service, meaning the vulnerable netlink message handling code is in use
-
Inspect netlink socket configurationExamine /var/run/connman directory or check netlink socket permissions using 'ss -x' to see active netlink sockets associated with ConnManAffected if ConnMan is listening on netlink sockets without proper kernel source verification (the vulnerable condition exists in all versions before 0.85)
-
Confirm netlink message handling is activeReview ConnMan logs (journalctl -u connman or /var/log/connman/) for netlink-related operations indicating active network configuration managementAffected if Netlink message handling is active, which is the attack surface for this vulnerability
A system is affected if ConnMan version 0.84 or lower (including versions 0.1-0.11) is installed and actively running, as the unverified netlink message processing vulnerability is present in these versions.
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 ConnMan to version 0.85 or later where the fix implements proper kernel source verification for netlink messages. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, restrict network access to prevent untrusted sources from reaching the service.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2320 — 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-2012-2320 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