CVE-2012-3347
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 · uneditedAutoFORM PDM Archive before 7.0 implements user accounts in a way that allows for JMX Console authentication, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions via the /jmx-console URI, and then upload and execute arbitrary JSP code via a JBoss remote-deployment mechanism, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-1828.
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 confidenceAutoFORM PDM Archive before version 7.0 implements user accounts in a way that permits JMX Console authentication, allowing remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions via the /jmx-console URI. Attackers can then leverage the JBoss remote-deployment mechanism to upload and execute arbitrary JSP code on the server.
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<= 6.920= 6.9CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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 if AutoFORM PDM Archive is installedCheck for the presence of AutoFORM PDM Archive installation directories or contact system administrators to confirm the software is deployed. Look for directories or files containing 'AutoFORM' or 'PDM' in the application installation path.Affected if AutoFORM PDM Archive is present on the system
-
Check the installed version of AutoFORM PDM ArchiveLocate the version information file or check the application about/version panel within the AutoFORM PDM Archive installation. Compare the installed version number against the affected ranges: versions 6.9 and 6.920 or lower.Affected if The installed version is 6.9 or 6.920 or any version lower than 6.920
-
Verify if the JMX console is accessibleAttempt to access the /jmx-console URI on the server hosting AutoFORM PDM Archive. This is typically found at http://servername/jmx-console or https://servername/jmx-console.Affected if The JMX console is reachable and responds to requests
-
Check network accessibility of the JMX consoleDetermine if the JMX console is exposed to untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules, network configurations, and access control lists that govern access to port 80 or 443 on the server.Affected if The JMX console is accessible from networks outside the trusted administrative zone
A user is affected if AutoFORM PDM Archive version 6.9 or 6.920 or lower is installed AND the JMX console is accessible on the network.
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 to AutoFORM PDM Archive 7.0 or later. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, disable the JMX console and ensure network segmentation restricts access to administrative interfaces.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3347 — 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-2012-3347 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