CVE-2012-4566
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 · uneditedThe DTLS support in radsecproxy before 1.6.2 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, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4523.
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 confidenceThe DTLS implementation in radsecproxy before version 1.6.2 contains a certificate verification flaw where CA settings from unrelated configuration blocks can be incorrectly applied during certificate chain validation. This allows an attacker to potentially spoof clients by presenting a certificate validated against the wrong certificate authority.
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= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3= 1.3.1= 1.4= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.3= 1.5= 1.6CVSS 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.
-
Identify radsecproxy installation and versionRun 'radsecproxy -v' or check the installed package version using your system's package manager (e.g., 'dpkg -l radsecproxy' or 'rpm -qi radsecproxy')Affected if The installed version is 1.6.1 or earlier, or matches any of these versions: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, or 1.6
-
Determine if DTLS is enabledInspect the radsecproxy configuration file (typically /etc/radsecproxy.conf or /etc/radsecproxy/radsecproxy.conf) for 'TLS' or 'DTLS' block definitions, particularly 'tls' or 'dtls' directives in the configurationAffected if DTLS is configured and in use; the vulnerability only affects DTLS certificate chain verification, not TLS
-
Verify presence of multiple CA configuration blocksReview the radsecproxy configuration file for more than one block defining CA certificate paths or CA certificate authorities (look for 'CAFile', 'CAPath', or multiple 'TLS'/'DTLS' blocks with different CA settings)Affected if Multiple configuration blocks with distinct CA settings exist; the flaw allows CA settings from one block to incorrectly validate certificates in another block
-
Confirm certificate validation behaviorIf multiple CA blocks exist, test or inspect certificate chain validation to verify each block is using its own CA for validation and not inadvertently using CA settings from other configuration blocksAffected if Certificates from one DTLS client are being validated against a CA defined in a different configuration block than the one handling that client's connection
You are affected if radsecproxy version 1.6.1 or earlier is in use AND DTLS is enabled with multiple CA configuration blocks, allowing potential cross-block certificate validation.
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 to radsecproxy 1.6.2 or later, which properly associates CA settings with their respective configuration blocks during DTLS certificate chain verification.
- 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-2012-4566 — 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-2012-4566 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