CVE-2012-3570
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in ISC DHCP 4.2.x before 4.2.4-P1, when DHCPv6 mode is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation fault and daemon exit) via a crafted client identifier parameter.
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 confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ISC DHCP versions 4.2.x before 4.2.4-P1 when DHCPv6 mode is enabled. The flaw is triggered by processing a specially crafted client identifier parameter, which can cause the DHCP daemon to crash with a segmentation fault, resulting in denial of service.
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= 4.2.0= 4.2.1= 4.2.2= 4.2.3= 4.2.4CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:A/AC:M/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.
-
Determine installed ISC DHCP versionRun 'dhcpd -v' or 'dhcpd6 -v' to display version information. On Linux systems, also check via package manager: 'rpm -q dhcp' or 'dpkg -l isc-dhcp-server'Affected if The version displayed is 4.2.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, or 4.2.4 (without the -P1 patch)
-
Locate DHCP server configuration fileCommon paths are /etc/dhcp/dhcpd.conf or /etc/dhcpd.conf. Check the DHCP daemon configuration directory for your OSAffected if A dhcpd.conf file exists and contains DHCPv6 configuration directives
-
Verify DHCPv6 mode is enabledOpen the dhcpd.conf file and search for DHCPv6-related statements such as 'dhcpv6', 'option dhcp6', or IPv6 addresses in the 'range' or 'host' declarations. Also check for 'ddns-update-style' with IPv6 or any 'authoritative' statements referencing IPv6Affected if The configuration contains DHCPv6 statements or IPv6 address ranges, indicating DHCPv6 mode is active
-
Confirm DHCP daemon is runningCheck running processes: 'ps aux | grep dhcpd' or 'systemctl status isc-dhcp-server' or 'service dhcpd status'Affected if The DHCP daemon (dhcpd or dhcpd6) is actively running on the system
The system is affected if ISC DHCP version 4.2.0 through 4.2.4 is installed, DHCPv6 mode is configured in dhcpd.conf, and the DHCP daemon is running.
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 ISC DHCP server to version 4.2.4-P1 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider disabling DHCPv6 mode if not required in the environment, though upgrading is the recommended solution.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3570 — 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-2012-3570 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