CVE-2012-3127
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in Oracle Sun Solaris 10 allows remote attackers to affect availability, related to SCTP.
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 · low confidenceCVE-2012-3127 is an unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Sun Solaris 10's SCTP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol) implementation. Remote attackers can exploit this to affect availability, likely through a denial-of-service condition. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 5.4 (Medium).
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= 5.10CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the operating system version is Solaris 10Run 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to confirm the system is SunOS 5.10Affected if The system is running SunOS 5.10 (Solaris 10)
-
Check if SCTP protocol support is loadedRun 'modinfo | grep sctp' or 'grep sctp /etc/system' to see if SCTP kernel module is loaded or configuredAffected if SCTP kernel module is loaded or SCTP is enabled in system configuration
-
Look for active SCTP listenersRun 'netstat -an | grep sctp' or 'sctp_diag' (if available) to check for listening SCTP portsAffected if Any service is listening on SCTP ports (typically port 9899 or 9898)
-
Check for SCTP configured in network servicesReview /etc/inetd.conf or /etc/services for SCTP-enabled services, and check 'svcs -a | grep sctp' for SCTP-related servicesAffected if SCTP-based services are enabled in inetd or SMF services
A system is affected only if it is running Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10) AND has SCTP protocol enabled or exposed, making it vulnerable to remote DoS via SCTP traffic.
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 dataApply Oracle Critical Patch Updates for Solaris 10 or implement network-level controls to restrict unauthorized SCTP traffic. If patching is not feasible, consider disabling SCTP if not required by legitimate applications.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3127 — 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-2012-3127 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