CVE-2012-2964
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 · uneditedThe BreakingPoint Storm appliance before 3.0 requires cleartext credentials for establishing a session from a GUI administrative client, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by sniffing the network for XML documents.
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 confidenceThe BreakingPoint Storm appliance versions prior to 3.0 transmit GUI administrative credentials in cleartext within XML documents during session establishment, allowing remote attackers on the same network segment to capture sensitive authentication credentials via network sniffing.
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<= 2.0= 1.2= 1.4= 1.5all versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm BreakingPoint Storm Appliance is in useIdentify if the BreakingPoint Storm appliance product is deployed in your environment. Check asset inventory, network documentation, or physically inspect the appliance for the BreakingPoint Storm label.Affected if The appliance is present in your environment
-
Determine the installed appliance versionAccess the appliance's web GUI or CLI and locate the version information, typically found in About or System Info sections. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: CTM versions <= 2.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, or any version of the standard Storm Appliance.Affected if The version is prior to 3.0 for CTM, or any version for the standard Storm Appliance
-
Identify the GUI access protocolCheck whether the administrative web interface is accessed via HTTP (port 80) or HTTPS (port 443). Inspect browser address bar or check the appliance network configuration for the protocol setting.Affected if GUI is accessed over plain HTTP (no SSL/TLS encryption)
-
Inspect session establishment trafficUse a network sniffer (such as Wireshark or tcpdump) to capture traffic during GUI login. Examine the HTTP/XML traffic for readable username and password fields in cleartext rather than encrypted content.Affected if Credentials are visible in cleartext within XML documents during login
You are affected if you have a BreakingPoint Storm Appliance running any version prior to 3.0 (or any version of the standard appliance) and the GUI session transmits credentials in cleartext over HTTP.
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 the BreakingPoint Storm appliance to version 3.0 or later, which addresses the cleartext credential transmission. Alternatively, implement network segmentation and VLAN isolation to reduce the attack surface for credential sniffing.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2964 — 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-2012-2964 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