CVE-2012-2337
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 · uneditedsudo 1.6.x and 1.7.x before 1.7.9p1, and 1.8.x before 1.8.4p5, does not properly support configurations that use a netmask syntax, which allows local users to bypass intended command restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by executing a command on a host that has an IPv4 address.
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 confidenceSudo versions 1.6.x, 1.7.x before 1.7.9p1, and 1.8.x before 1.8.4p5 contain a flaw in netmask syntax parsing for host specifications. When sudo is configured to allow commands only from hosts with specific IP ranges using netmask notation, local users can bypass these restrictions by executing commands on hosts with IPv4 addresses that match in certain opportunistic circumstances.
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= 1.6= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.6.2p3= 1.6.3= 1.6.3_p7= 1.6.4= 1.6.4p2= 1.6.5= 1.6.6= 1.6.7= 1.6.7p5CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/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.
-
Check installed sudo versionRun 'sudo --version' or 'rpm -q sudo' / 'dpkg -l sudo' to determine the installed versionAffected if Version is 1.6.x, 1.7.x before 1.7.9p1, or 1.8.x before 1.8.4p5
-
Identify sudoers file locationTypically /etc/sudoers or files in /etc/sudoers.d/Affected if Any sudoers configuration exists
-
Check for netmask syntax in host specificationsSearch sudoers files for netmask notation patterns such as 'IP/MASK' or 'IP/NETMASK' in Host_Alias or user privilege specifications (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24 or 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0)Affected if Netmask notation is used in host specifications for command restrictions
-
Verify command restrictions tied to netmask hostsExamine sudoers entries that associate commands with hosts defined using netmask syntax - look for lines where a user or group is granted run permissions on hosts with netmask-based IP rangesAffected if Commands are restricted to run only from hosts matching netmask ranges
User is affected if running a vulnerable sudo version AND the sudoers configuration uses netmask notation to restrict commands to specific IP ranges, allowing potential bypass of those host-based restrictions.
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 sudo to version 1.7.9p1 or later (1.7.x) or 1.8.4p5 or later (1.8.x). Review and validate all sudo configurations that use netmask syntax to ensure command restrictions are properly enforced.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2337 — 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-2012-2337 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