CVE-2012-3420
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 · uneditedMultiple memory leaks in Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) before 3.6.5 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption or daemon crash) via a large number of PDUs with (1) a crafted context number to the DoFetch function in pmcd/src/dofetch.c or (2) a negative type value to the __pmGetPDU function in libpcp/src/pdu.c.
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 confidencePerformance Co-Pilot (PCP) versions before 3.6.5 contain multiple memory leak vulnerabilities in the pmcd daemon. Remote attackers can trigger memory exhaustion or daemon crashes by sending large numbers of specially crafted PDU packets: either with a crafted context number to the DoFetch function (pmcd/src/dofetch.c) or with a negative type value to the __pmGetPDU function (libpcp/src/pdu.c). The vulnerabilities allow unauthenticated remote attackers to cause denial of service through memory consumption.
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<= 3.6.4= 2.1.1= 2.1.2= 2.1.3= 2.1.4= 2.1.5= 2.1.6= 2.1.7= 2.1.8= 2.1.9= 2.1.10= 2.1.11CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if PCP is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i pcp' on Red Hat-based systems, 'dpkg -l | grep -i pcp' on Debian-based, or look for /usr/lib/pcp directoryAffected if No PCP packages found means not affected
-
Determine the installed PCP versionRun 'rpm -q pcp' or 'dpkg -s pcp' to get the exact version numberAffected if Version is 3.6.4 or lower, or matches 2.1.x versions listed in affected range (2.1.1 through 2.1.11)
-
Check if pmcd daemon is runningRun 'ps aux | grep pmcd' or 'systemctl status pmcd'Affected if pmcd daemon is not running means not vulnerable to remote attack
-
Verify if pmcd is listening on network portsRun 'netstat -tlnp | grep pmcd' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 4330' (default pmcd port)Affected if pmcd is exposed to network without access controls means vulnerable to remote exploitation
-
Check if context number or PDU handling is in useReview pmcd logs in /var/log/pcp/pmcd/ for abnormal PDU errors or memory usage spikes using 'pmstat' or 'pmrep'Affected if High memory usage by pmcd process or frequent crashes indicate possible exploitation
The environment is affected if PCP version is 3.6.4 or lower (or any 2.1.x version), pmcd daemon is running, and it is accessible over the network to unauthenticated attackers.
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 Performance Co-Pilot to version 3.6.5 or later to address the memory leak vulnerabilities. If upgrading is not immediately possible, consider network-level access controls to limit who can send PDUs to the pmcd daemon.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3420 — 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-2012-3420 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