CVE-2012-4523
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 · uneditedradsecproxy before 1.6.1 does not properly verify certificates when there are configuration blocks with CA settings that are unrelated to the block being used for verifying the certificate chain, which might allow remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and spoof clients.
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 confidenceradsecproxy before 1.6.1 contains a certificate verification bypass flaw. When multiple CA configuration blocks exist, the software may use an unrelated CA block to verify the certificate chain instead of the intended one, allowing remote attackers to spoof clients and bypass access restrictions.
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<= 1.6= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3= 1.3.1= 1.4= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.3= 1.5CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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 radsecproxy versionRun 'radsecproxy -v' or use the package manager (e.g., dpkg -l radsecproxy, rpm -q radsecproxy) to obtain the version.Affected if Version is 1.6.0 or earlier (any version before 1.6.1).
-
Locate radsecproxy configuration fileFind the configuration file that radsecproxy uses, typically via the -f command-line option or by checking default locations.Affected if The configuration file exists and contains CA definitions.
-
Identify multiple CA configuration blocksSearch the configuration for more than one CA block (for example, lines starting with 'CA' or 'CAfile').Affected if Two or more distinct CA blocks are defined in the configuration.
-
Check CA association with TLS/peer blocksInspect each TLS or realm block to see if it explicitly references a CA block; if multiple CA blocks exist and some TLS/peer blocks rely on the default CA, the wrong CA may be used.Affected if Multiple CA blocks exist and at least one TLS/peer block does not have an explicit CA reference.
If the installed version is before 1.6.1 and the configuration contains more than one CA block with TLS/peer blocks that lack explicit CA association, the environment is likely affected.
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 radsecproxy to version 1.6.1 or later. After upgrading, audit CA configuration blocks to ensure the correct CA is associated with each peer/tls block for proper certificate chain validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4523 — 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-2012-4523 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