CVE-2012-4001
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 mod_pagespeed module before 0.10.22.6 for the Apache HTTP Server does not properly verify its host name, which allows remote attackers to trigger HTTP requests to arbitrary hosts via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by requests to intranet servers.
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 mod_pagespeed module for Apache HTTP Server before version 0.10.22.6 lacks proper hostname verification, allowing remote attackers to abuse the module to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or intranet servers. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability.
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<= 0.10.22.4= 0.10.19.1CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Verify mod_pagespeed is loaded in ApacheRun `apachectl -M 2>/dev/null | grep pagespeed` or inspect Apache config files (httpd.conf, apache2.conf) for `LoadModule pagespeed_module`Affected if mod_pagespeed module is loaded and enabled in Apache
-
Identify mod_pagespeed versionCheck the mod_pagespeed shared object file version: `ls -la /usr/lib/apache2/modules/mod_pagespeed*` or inspect the module binary directly with `modinfo` if available, or look for version comments in the Apache configAffected if Version cannot be determined or is found to be <= 0.10.22.4 or == 0.10.19.1
-
Confirm hostname verification is absentInspect the mod_pagespeed configuration for `ModPagespeedDomain` directives or `ModPagespeedFetchProxy` settings that allow arbitrary internal domain routing. Review `/etc/mod_pagespeed/` or similar config directoriesAffected if Configuration allows fetching from arbitrary domains or lacks domain whitelist restrictions
If mod_pagespeed is loaded and its version is <= 0.10.22.4 or exactly 0.10.19.1, the SSRF vulnerability is present.
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 mod_pagespeed to version 0.10.22.6 or later, which includes proper hostname verification to prevent unauthorized internal requests.
- Consultation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4001 — 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-2012-4001 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