dbcve.org
OpenSSLFramework / library

CVE-2012-2333

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2012-05-14
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.9.8w or later.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Integer underflow in OpenSSL before 0.9.8x, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0j, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1c, when TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, or DTLS is used with CBC encryption, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted TLS packet that is not properly handled during a certain explicit IV calculation.

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 confidence

Integer underflow vulnerability in OpenSSL's CBC mode encryption handling for TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, and DTLS protocols. When processing crafted TLS packets with specific explicit IV calculations, the integer underflow causes a buffer over-read, leading to potential denial of service or unspecified other impact.

MitigationUpgrade OpenSSL to version 0.9.8x, 1.0.0j, 1.0.1c or later. For legacy systems that cannot be immediately upgraded, consider disabling TLS 1.1/1.2 and DTLS with CBC cipher suites as a temporary mitigation.

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
OpenSSLFramework / library
Affected:<= 0.9.8w= 0.9.1c= 0.9.2b= 0.9.3= 0.9.3a= 0.9.4= 0.9.5= 0.9.5a= 0.9.6= 0.9.6a= 0.9.6b= 0.9.6c
OpenSSLFramework / library
Affected:= 0.9.6-15= 0.9.6b-3= 0.9.7a-2

CVSS 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
M
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:M/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine installed OpenSSL version
    Run 'openssl version' or check via package manager (rpm -q openssl, dpkg -l openssl)
    Affected if Version is 0.9.8w or lower, or matches specific affected versions 0.9.1c, 0.9.2b, 0.9.3, 0.9.3a, 0.9.4, 0.9.5, 0.9.5a, 0.9.6, 0.9.6a, 0.9.6b, or 0.9.6c; for Red Hat systems, versions 0.9.6-15, 0.9.6b-3, or 0.9.7a-2 are affected
  2. Identify if TLS 1.1 or TLS 1.2 is enabled
    Use 'openssl s_client -connect <host:port> -tls1_1' or '-tls1_2' to test if these protocol versions negotiate; check ssl.conf or application TLS configuration files
    Affected if TLS 1.1 or TLS 1.2 is enabled and the OpenSSL version is vulnerable
  3. Identify if DTLS is enabled
    Check for DTLS usage via 'openssl s_client -connect <host:port> -dtls1' or examine application configuration for DTLS-enabled services
    Affected if DTLS is enabled and the OpenSSL version is vulnerable
  4. Check for CBC cipher suites in use
    Test with 'openssl s_client' using '-cipher' to enumerate supported ciphers, or review server SSL configuration for CBC-based ciphers (e.g., AES-CBC, DES-CBC)
    Affected if CBC mode cipher suites are enabled along with TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, or DTLS on a vulnerable OpenSSL version

You are affected if your system runs a vulnerable OpenSSL version (0.9.8w or lower, or the specific point versions listed) AND has TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, or DTLS enabled with CBC cipher suites.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 0.9.8w
Interim mitigation

Upgrade OpenSSL to version 0.9.8x, 1.0.0j, 1.0.1c or later. For legacy systems that cannot be immediately upgraded, consider disabling TLS 1.1/1.2 and DTLS with CBC cipher suites as a temporary mitigation.

Fix this in OpenSSL Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2333 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-2333 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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