CVE-2012-4022
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 · uneditedPebble before 2.6.4 allows remote attackers to trigger loss of blog-entry viewability via a crafted comment.
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 · moderate confidencePebble before 2.6.4 contains an input validation flaw in comment processing that allows remote attackers to submit crafted comments which cause blog entries to become invisible or inaccessible to users.
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<= 2.6.3= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3= 1.4= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.5= 1.5.1= 1.6= 1.7CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Identify Pebble versionLocate the Pebble installation and check the version number. In a deployed WAR, the version is often displayed in the footer of the blog pages, or check the pebble-*.jar filename, or look for a version.properties file within the WEB-INF/lib directory.Affected if The installed version is 2.6.3 or earlier, or any of these versions: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.6, or 1.7.
-
Confirm comment submission is enabledReview the Pebble configuration (typically in pebble-config.xml or through the blog admin interface) to verify that the comment feature is turned on and users can submit comments.Affected if Comment submission is enabled and publicly accessible, allowing attackers to submit malicious comments.
-
Check for blog entries made invisibleReview blog entries and look for posts that appear to have zero comments or are inaccessible despite having content. Inspect the underlying XML/JSON storage files for any unusual comment entries that may contain malformed or specially crafted content causing the invisibility.Affected if There are blog entries that are unexpectedly invisible, inaccessible, or show zero comments when they should have content or comments.
A user is affected if they are running any Pebble version listed as vulnerable (2.6.3 or earlier, or versions 1.0 through 1.7) and have comment submission enabled, with potentially visible blog entries that have become invisible or inaccessible.
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 Pebble to version 2.6.4 or later to obtain the patch for this vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4022 — 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-2012-4022 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