CVE-2012-4821
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 · uneditedMultiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the JRE component in IBM Java 7 SR2 and earlier, Java 6.0.1 SR3 and earlier, Java 6 SR11 and earlier, Java 5 SR14 and earlier, and Java 142 SR13 FP13 and earlier; as used in IBM Rational Host On-Demand, Rational Change, Tivoli Monitoring, Smart Analytics System 5600, Tivoli Remote Control 5.1.2, WebSphere Real Time, Lotus Notes & Domino, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center, and Service Deliver Manager; and other products from other vendors such as Red Hat, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via "insecure use" of the (1) java.lang.Class getDeclaredMethods or nd (2) java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject setAccessible() methods.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability stems from insecure use of Java reflection APIs - specifically java.lang.Class getDeclaredMethods and java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject setAccessible(). The setAccessible() method allows disabling access checks when using reflection, and when used improperly it can allow attackers to bypass Java security restrictions, access private members, and execute arbitrary code remotely.
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>= 1.4.2, <= 1.4.2.13.13>= 5.0.0.0, <= 5.0.14.0>= 6.0.0.0, <= 6.0.11.0>= 7.0.0.0, <= 7.0.2.0= 8.0= 8.0.1= 8.0.2= 8.0.2.1= 8.0.2.2= 8.0.2.3= 8.0.2.4= 8.5.0= 8.5.0.1= 8.5.1= 8.5.1.1= 8.5.1.2= 8.0= 8.0.0= 8.0.1= 8.0.2= 8.0.2.0= 8.0.2.1= 8.0.2.2= 8.0.2.3= 8.0.2.4= 8.0.2.5= 8.0.2.6= 8.5= 8.0.80407= 8.0.80822= 8.5.1.20100709-1631= 8.0= 8.0.1= 8.0.1.2= 8.0.1.3= 8.5.0.0= 8.5.0.1= 8.5.0.2= 8.5.1.1= 8.5.1.2= 8.5.1.3= 8.5.2.1= 8.5.3= 4.7= 5.1= 5.2= 5.3= 1.6.0.12= 8.0.8.0= 9.0.8.0= 10.0.9.0= 10.0.10.0= 11.0.3.0= 11.0.4.0= 11.0.5.0= 11.0.5.1= 11.0.6.0= 11.0.6.1= 7.2.1.0= 7.2.2.0CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 the IBM Java runtime versionRun 'java -version' or check the IBMJava2-RELEASE file in the Java installation directory. Look for the build number (e.g., SR13, SR14) which indicates the Service Release.Affected if The version is 1.4.2 through 1.4.2.13.13, 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.14.0, 6.0.0.0 through 6.0.11.0, or 7.0.0.0 through 7.0.2.0 (all within these ranges).
-
Check IBM Lotus Domino versionRun ' Domino ServerVersion' command or check the version.ini file in the Domino data directory.Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.0, 8.0.1, 8.0.2, 8.0.2.1, 8.0.2.2, 8.0.2.3, 8.0.2.4, 8.5.0, 8.5.0.1, 8.5.1, 8.5.1.1, or 8.5.1.2.
-
Check IBM Lotus Notes versionRun 'notes -version' from the Notes program directory or check the About Notes dialog (Help > About IBM Lotus Notes).Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.0, 8.0.0, 8.0.1, 8.0.2, 8.0.2.0, 8.0.2.1, 8.0.2.2, 8.0.2.3, 8.0.2.4, 8.0.2.5, 8.0.2.6, or 8.5.
-
Check IBM Lotus Notes Traveler versionCheck the Traveler installation directory for the version.txt file or run 'traveler -version' if available.Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.0, 8.0.1, 8.0.1.2, 8.0.1.3, 8.5.0.0, 8.5.0.1, 8.5.0.2, 8.5.1.1, 8.5.1.2, 8.5.1.3, 8.5.2.1, or 8.5.3.
-
Check IBM Rational Change versionRun 'rcmc -version' or check the version from the Rational Change administration console.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, or 5.3.
-
Check IBM Service Delivery Manager versionCheck the installation directory for version information or run the ISDM version command if available.Affected if The installed version is exactly 7.2.1.0 or 7.2.2.0.
A system is affected if it runs any of the listed IBM Java versions within the vulnerable SR ranges OR runs any of the specific IBM product versions enumerated in the CVE, as the vulnerability exists in IBM Java's reflection API implementation.
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 IBM Java to versions beyond the affected SRs (7 SR3+, 6.0.1 SR4+, 6 SR12+, 5 SR15+, 142 SR14+) and apply vendor patches to all affected IBM products and Red Hat implementations.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4821 — 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-2012-4821 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