CVE-2012-4245
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 scriptfu network server in GIMP 2.6 does not require authentication, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the python-fu-eval command.
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 scriptfu network server in GIMP 2.6 lacks authentication, enabling remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands through the python-fu-eval command. This is a critical design flaw where a network service exposes dangerous functionality without access controls.
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>= 2.6.0, <= 2.6.13CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Check installed GIMP versionRun 'gimp --version' or look in Help > About GIMP to see the exact version numberAffected if Version is between 2.6.0 and 2.6.13 inclusive (vulnerable range)
-
Determine if scriptfu network server is enabledLook in GIMP preferences under 'Script-Fu > Server' or check for a scriptfu-server process listening on network ports (default port 10008)Affected if The scriptfu network server is turned on and listening on a network interface
-
Verify network exposure of scriptfu serverUse 'netstat -anp' or 'ss -anp' to check if port 10008 (default scriptfu server port) is open and bound to 0.0.0.0 rather than localhost onlyAffected if The server is listening on all interfaces (0.0.0.0) making it network-accessible
-
Check for recent connection or execution logsReview system logs and any available GIMP scriptfu server logs for python-fu-eval invocations from remote IP addressesAffected if There are logged python-fu-eval commands from unexpected or external IP addresses
You are affected if GIMP version is 2.6.0-2.6.13 AND the scriptfu network server is enabled and accessible (not restricted to localhost). The vulnerability only matters when the server 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 dataDisable the scriptfu network server if not needed; otherwise, implement network-level access controls or authentication to restrict access to trusted users only.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4245 — 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-2012-4245 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