CVE-2012-2994
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 CoSoSys Endpoint Protector 4 appliance establishes an EPProot password based entirely on the appliance serial number, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via a brute-force attack.
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 CoSoSys Endpoint Protector 4 appliance sets the EPProot administrative password using a deterministic algorithm based solely on the appliance's serial number. Since serial numbers follow predictable patterns and can be obtained or enumerated, attackers can easily brute-force the password to gain unauthorized administrative access.
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 dataall 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed productDetermine if the system is running CoSoSys Endpoint Protector 4 appliance by checking system information, about pages, or administrative interfacesAffected if The system is CoSoSys Endpoint Protector 4 appliance
-
Locate the EPProot accountAccess the appliance administrative interface or user database to verify the existence of the EPProot administrative accountAffected if The EPProot administrative account exists on the system
-
Check serial number configurationObtain the appliance serial number through administrative interface, system diagnostics, or device labelingAffected if A serial number is assigned to the appliance
-
Verify password derivation methodCompare the current EPProot password against a password derived using the default algorithm based on the serial number, or inspect password storage/configuration for deterministic patternsAffected if The EPProot password matches or can be derived from the serial number using the default algorithm
You are affected if the system is a CoSoSys Endpoint Protector 4 appliance where the EPProot password is still derived deterministically from the serial number rather than being changed to a strong unique value.
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 dataImmediately change the default EPProot password to a strong, unique value not derived from any predictable data. Implement account lockout policies and consider network segmentation to limit exposure. Contact vendor for firmware updates that address the weak password derivation mechanism.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2994 — 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-2012-2994 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