CVE-2012-3533
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 python SDK before 3.1.0.6 and CLI before 3.1.0.8 for oVirt 3.1 does not check the server SSL certificate against the client keys, which allows remote attackers to spoof a server via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack.
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 confidenceThe oVirt python SDK before 3.1.0.6 and CLI before 3.1.0.8 fail to validate SSL certificates from the server, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof the server by presenting a fraudulent certificate. This enables credential theft or data interception against clients connecting to oVirt infrastructure.
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= 3.1<= 3.1.0.5all versionsCVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Identify installed oVirt Engine SDK versionRun 'pip show ovirt-engine-sdk' or 'pip list | grep ovirt' to list installed oVirt SDK packages and their versionsAffected if The SDK version is 3.1.0.5 (any sub-version) - this version lacks SSL certificate validation
-
Identify installed oVirt CLI versionRun 'pip show ovirt-engine-cli' or check the ovirt-cli package version using the system's package managerAffected if The CLI version is 3.1.0.5 or any version <= 3.1.0.5 - these versions fail to validate SSL certificates
-
Check for oVirt 3.1 installationQuery the system for installed oVirt Engine packages using 'rpm -qa | grep ovirt' (RPM-based) or 'dpkg -l | grep ovirt' (Debian-based)Affected if The installed oVirt Engine packages are from the 3.1 release line and the SDK/CLI versions cannot be determined or fall within the affected ranges
A user is affected if the installed oVirt Engine SDK is version 3.1.0.5, or the CLI version is 3.1.0.5 or earlier, as these versions do not perform SSL certificate validation and are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
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 the python SDK to version 3.1.0.6 or later and CLI to version 3.1.0.8 or later, which implement proper SSL certificate validation against client keys.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3533 — 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-2012-3533 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