CVE-2012-3056
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the Cisco WebEx Recording Format (WRF) player T27 L through SP11 EP26, T27 LB through SP21 EP10, T27 LC before SP25 EP11, T27 LD before SP32 CP2, and T28 L10N before SP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted WRF file, aka Bug ID CSCtz72946.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in Cisco WebEx Recording Format (WRF) player allows remote code execution or denial of service via a specially crafted malicious WRF file. The overflow occurs during parsing of WRF file content, leading to memory corruption that can be exploited to execute arbitrary code.
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>= 27.11.0, <= 27.11.26>= 27.21.0, <= 27.21.10>= 27.25.0, < 27.25.11>= 27.32.0, < 27.32.2>= 28.0.0, < 28.0.1CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Verify WebEx Recording Format Player installationCheck if Cisco WebEx WRF Player is installed on the system. This may be found in program files, or use system inventory tools to detect WebEx client software.Affected if WebEx WRF Player software is present on the system
-
Determine installed WRF Player versionLocate the version information for the installed WebEx WRF Player. This is typically available through the player About dialog, installed program properties, or version metadata in the executable.Affected if Unable to determine the version prevents accurate vulnerability assessment
-
Compare version against affected rangesMatch the installed version number against the following vulnerable ranges: 27.11.0 through 27.11.26, 27.21.0 through 27.21.10, 27.25.0 through 27.25.10, 27.32.0 through 27.32.1, or 28.0.0Affected if Installed version falls within any of the affected ranges: 27.11.0-27.11.26, 27.21.0-27.21.10, 27.25.0-27.25.10, 27.32.0-27.32.1, or 28.0.0
-
Assess WRF file handling exposureDetermine if users can open or preview WRF files within the player. The vulnerability is triggered when parsing specially crafted WRF file content.Affected if Users have the ability to open WRF files from untrusted sources in the WebEx player
A system is affected if the installed WebEx WRF Player version falls within any of the vulnerable ranges (27.11.0-27.11.26, 27.21.0-27.21.10, 27.25.0-27.25.10, 27.32.0-27.32.1, or 28.0.0) and users can open WRF files in the player.
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.
dbcve · scoped27.25.1127.32.228.0.1
Deploy vendor-provided patches for affected WebEx player versions (T27 SP11 EP26+, T27 LB SP21 EP10+, T27 LC SP25 EP11+, T27 LD SP32 CP2+, T28 L10N SP1+). Until patched, restrict WRF file handling to trusted sources and consider network-level controls blocking untrusted WRF attachments.
Version 27.11.27+ for T27 L; 27.21.11+ for T27 LB; SP25 EP11+ for T27 LC; SP32 CP2+ for T27 LD; SP1+ for T28 L10N
- 1. Identify the current installed version of Cisco WebEx Recording Format (WRF) Player
- 2. Based on the installed version line (T27 L, T27 LB, T27 LC, T27 LD, or T28 L10N), determine the minimum fixed version needed
- 3. For T27 L (versions 27.11.0-27.11.26): Upgrade to version 27.11.27 or later (SP11 EP27 or subsequent)
- 4. For T27 LB (versions 27.21.0-27.21.10): Upgrade to version 27.21.11 or later (SP21 EP11 or subsequent)
- 5. For T27 LC (versions 27.25.0-27.25.10): Upgrade to SP25 EP11 or later
- 6. For T27 LD (versions 27.32.0-27.32.1): Upgrade to SP32 CP2 or later
- 7. For T28 L10N (versions before SP1): Upgrade to SP1 or later
- 8. Obtain the update from Cisco's official download site or through your Cisco support contract
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3056 — 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-2012-3056 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