CVE-2012-3492
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 filesystem authentication (condor_io/condor_auth_fs.cpp) in Condor 7.6.x before 7.6.10 and 7.8.x before 7.8.4 uses authentication directories even when they have weak permissions, which allows remote attackers to impersonate users by renaming a user's authentication directory.
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 confidenceIn Condor versions 7.6.x before 7.6.10 and 7.8.x before 7.8.4, the filesystem authentication module (condor_auth_fs.cpp) trusts authentication directories regardless of their permission settings. An attacker with filesystem access can rename a user's authentication directory to gain user impersonation capabilities.
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= 7.6.0= 7.6.1= 7.6.2= 7.6.3= 7.6.4= 7.6.5= 7.6.6= 7.6.7= 7.6.8= 7.6.9= 7.8.0= 7.8.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
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.
-
Determine installed Condor versionRun `condor_version` or check the installed RPM/DEB package with `rpm -q condor` / `dpkg -l condor`Affected if Version is 7.6.0 through 7.6.9, or 7.8.0 through 7.8.3 (the version string will show 7.6.x where x < 10, or 7.8.x where x < 4)
-
Identify if filesystem authentication is enabledCheck Condor configuration files for `SEC_AUTHENTICATION_METHODS` or `AUTH_FS` settings. Look in `/etc/condor/condor_config` or `$(CONDOR_CONFIG)` for entries containing `FS` or `filesystem`Affected if The configuration includes `FS` or `filesystem` in the authentication methods list (for example, `SEC_AUTHENTICATION_METHODS = FS, ...`)
-
Locate the Condor authentication directoryCheck Condor configuration for `SEC_CREDENTIAL_DIRECTORY` or `CONDOR_TMP` settings. This typically defaults to a path under `/tmp` such as `/tmp/condorTmp` or `/var/lib/condor/tmp`Affected if A directory is configured and used for filesystem authentication credentials
-
Inspect permissions on the authentication directoryRun `ls -la` on the directory identified in step 3 and examine the owner, group, and permission bitsAffected if The directory permissions allow write access by users other than the owner, or if the directory ownership can be manipulated by an attacker with filesystem access
You are affected if running a Condor version between 7.6.0-7.6.9 or 7.8.0-7.8.3 with filesystem authentication (AUTH_FS) enabled and the authentication directory has weak permissions that could allow renaming by an attacker.
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 Condor to version 7.6.10 or 7.8.4 or later, which enforces proper permission checks on authentication directories before use.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3492 — 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-2012-3492 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