CVE-2012-4741
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 RADIUS extension in PacketFence before 3.3.0 uses a different user name than is used for authentication for users with custom VLAN assignment extensions, which allows remote attackers to spoof user identities via the User-Name RADIUS attribute.
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 confidencePacketFence before 3.3.0 has a username spoofing vulnerability in its RADIUS extension. When users have custom VLAN assignment extensions configured, the RADIUS extension uses a different username for VLAN assignment than what was used during authentication, allowing remote attackers to impersonate users by supplying a crafted User-Name RADIUS attribute.
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<= 3.2.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed PacketFence versionRun 'pfcmd version' or check the PacketFence version file typically located in /usr/local/pf/lib/PacketFence.pm or use the admin web interface version displayAffected if The installed version is 3.2.0 or earlier (any version <= 3.2.0)
-
Verify RADIUS service is enabledCheck if the RADIUS service/daemon is running. This is typically the 'packetfence-radiusd' process or check /usr/local/pf/conf/radiusd.confAffected if RADIUS service is active and processing authentication requests
-
Confirm custom VLAN assignment extensions are configuredInspect the PacketFence configuration for custom VLAN assignment extensions, typically found in /usr/local/pf/conf/vlan_levels.conf or custom VLAN assignment configuration files referenced in the documentationAffected if Custom VLAN assignment extensions are explicitly configured in the PacketFence RADIUS configuration
-
Check RADIUS attribute handling in VLAN assignmentReview RADIUS request processing logs or packet captures to observe which User-Name attribute is used during VLAN assignment versus authenticationAffected if The User-Name used for VLAN assignment differs from the authenticated User-Name attribute
You are affected if running PacketFence version 3.2.0 or earlier AND have custom VLAN assignment extensions configured in the RADIUS module, allowing username mismatch between authentication and VLAN assignment.
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 PacketFence version 3.3.0 or later, which corrects the username handling to use the authenticated username for custom VLAN assignment extensions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4741 — 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-2012-4741 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