CVE-2012-4527
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in mcrypt 2.6.8 and earlier allows user-assisted remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long file name. NOTE: it is not clear whether this is a vulnerability.
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 · low confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in mcrypt 2.6.8 and earlier where processing a long file name can overflow a stack-allocated buffer. The attack requires user-assisted interaction (the user must open/process a file with a long name). May allow DoS or potentially arbitrary code execution.
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<= 2.6.8= 2.6.4= 2.6.5= 2.6.6= 2.6.7CVSS 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.
-
Verify mcrypt is installedRun 'mcrypt --version' or check your package manager for the mcrypt package (e.g., rpm -q mcrypt, dpkg -l mcrypt)Affected if mcrypt is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed mcrypt versionExecute 'mcrypt --version' and note the version number displayed, or query via package managerAffected if The installed version is 2.6.8 or earlier (2.6.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, or 2.6.8)
-
Identify mcrypt binary locationRun 'which mcrypt' to locate the binary executableAffected if mcrypt binary exists on the system
-
Assess file processing usageReview any scripts, applications, or workflows that invoke mcrypt to process files; check if users process files with names provided by untrusted sourcesAffected if mcrypt is used to process files, especially those with names from untrusted or external sources
The system is affected if mcrypt version 2.6.8 or earlier is installed AND the tool is used to process files with potentially long file names.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of mcrypt beyond 2.6.8. Avoid processing files with untrusted or unusually long file names using mcrypt.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4527 — 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-2012-4527 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