RubyApplication · Ruby Lang
CVE-2012-4464
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 · uneditedRuby 1.9.3 before patchlevel 286 and 2.0 before revision r37068 allows context-dependent attackers to bypass safe-level restrictions and modify untainted strings via the (1) exc_to_s or (2) name_err_to_s API function, which marks the string as tainted, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4466. NOTE: this issue might exist because of a CVE-2011-1005 regression.
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 confidenceRuby versions 1.9.3 before patchlevel 286 and 2.0 before r37068 contain a vulnerability in the exc_to_s and name_err_to_s API functions that incorrectly mark untainted strings as tainted when they're processed. This allows context-dependent attackers to bypass safe-level security restrictions designed to prevent modification of protected strings.
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
RubyApplication
= 1.9.3= 2.0= 2.0.0CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Ruby versionRun 'ruby --version' or 'ruby -v' to display the installed Ruby version and patchlevel or revision numberAffected if The version shows Ruby 1.9.3 with patchlevel less than 286, or Ruby 2.0 with revision less than r37068
-
Identify use of Exception#to_sSearch codebase for calls to the to_s method on Exception objects, such as exception.to_s or uses of the exc_to_s API functionAffected if Codebase contains calls to Exception#to_s or name_err_to_s on Exception or NameError objects
-
Identify use of NameError#to_sSearch codebase for calls to the to_s method on NameError objects, such as name_error.to_s or uses of the name_err_to_s API functionAffected if Codebase contains calls to NameError#to_s on NameError objects
-
Check for safe-level security usageSearch for safe-level settings in code, such as $SAFE variable assignments or SafeLevel constant usage, which rely on Ruby's taint mechanism for securityAffected if The application uses safe-level restrictions or relies on Ruby's taint mechanism to protect strings from modification
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable Ruby version (1.9.3 before patchlevel 286 or 2.0 before r37068) and their code uses Exception#to_s or NameError#to_s methods while relying on safe-level security to protect untainted strings.
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 Ruby to version 1.9.3 patchlevel 286 or later, or Ruby 2.0 revision r37068 or later, to remediate this safe-level bypass vulnerability.
Fix this in Ruby
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4464 — 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-2012-4464 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