CVE-2012-4466
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 1.8.7 before patchlevel 371, 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 name_err_mesg_to_str API function, which marks the string as tainted, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-1005.
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 1.8.7 before patchlevel 371, 1.9.3 before patchlevel 286, and 2.0 before revision r37068 contain a vulnerability in the name_err_mesg_to_str API function that incorrectly marks strings as tainted, allowing context-dependent attackers to bypass safe-level restrictions and modify what should be untainted 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= 1.8.7= 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 see the version number, patchlevel, and revisionAffected if Version shows 1.8.7, 1.9.3, or 2.0 without the required patchlevel or revision
-
Verify Ruby 1.8.7 patchlevelIf version shows Ruby 1.8.7, run `ruby -e 'puts RUBY_PATCHLEVEL'` to get the patchlevel numberAffected if Patchlevel is present and less than 371
-
Verify Ruby 1.9.3 patchlevelIf version shows Ruby 1.9.3, run `ruby -e 'puts RUBY_PATCHLEVEL'` to get the patchlevel numberAffected if Patchlevel is present and less than 286
-
Verify Ruby 2.0 revisionIf version shows Ruby 2.0, run `ruby -e 'puts RUBY_REVISION'` to get the SVN revision numberAffected if Revision number is present and less than 37068
You are affected if running Ruby 1.8.7 with patchlevel below 371, Ruby 1.9.3 with patchlevel below 286, or Ruby 2.0 with revision below r37068.
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 1.8.7 patchlevel 371 or later, 1.9.3 patchlevel 286 or later, or 2.0 at revision r37068 or later to resolve the unsafe string tainting behavior.
- 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-2012-4466 — 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-2012-4466 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