CVE-2012-4455
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 · uneditedopenCryptoki 2.4.1 allows local users to create or set world-writable permissions on arbitrary files via a symlink attack on the (1) LCK..opencryptoki or (2) LCK..opencryptoki_stdll file in /var/lock/.
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 confidenceopenCryptoki 2.4.1 has a symlink attack vulnerability in its lock file handling. Local users can exploit the LCK..opencryptoki or LCK..opencryptoki_stdll lock files in /var/lock/ to create or set world-writable permissions on arbitrary files by creating malicious symlinks, leading to local privilege escalation.
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= 2.4.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/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.
-
Verify openCryptoki is installedCheck if openCryptoki packages are present on the system using the package manager (e.g., rpm -qa | grep opencryptoki or dpkg -l | grep opencryptoki)Affected if openCryptoki version 2.4.1 is installed and the lock directory /var/lock/ is writable by untrusted users
-
Confirm the exact version numberQuery the installed openCryptoki version (e.g., rpm -q opencryptoki or pkginfo -i opencryptoki) and verify it equals 2.4.1Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.4.1
-
Inspect /var/lock/ directory permissionsRun 'ls -ld /var/lock/' to check the permissions on the lock directoryAffected if The directory is world-writable (mode 777 or similar) allowing untrusted users to create files
-
Check for vulnerable lock filesList contents of /var/lock/ for files named LCK..opencryptoki or LCK..opencryptoki_stdll using 'ls -la /var/lock/LCK*'Affected if These lock files exist in /var/lock/ with permissions that could be exploited
-
Verify lock file creation uses safe flagsExamine the openCryptoki source code or binary behavior for lock file creation using O_NOFOLLOW and symlink checks (code review required)Affected if The lock file creation code does not use O_NOFOLLOW and does not check for existing symlinks before file creation
A user is affected if openCryptoki version 2.4.1 is installed and the /var/lock/ directory or its lock files (LCK..opencryptoki, LCK..opencryptoki_stdll) are accessible to untrusted local users who could exploit symlink-based privilege escalation.
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 dataThe lock file creation code should be modified to check for symlink existence before file creation and use O_NOFOLLOW flag to prevent symlink following. Additionally, the lock directory should have restricted permissions to prevent untrusted user manipulation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4455 — 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-2012-4455 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