CVE-2012-4845
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 FTP client in IBM AIX 6.1 and 7.1, and VIOS 2.2.1.4-FP-25 SP-02, does not properly manage privileges in an RBAC environment, which allows attackers to bypass intended file-read restrictions by leveraging the setuid installation of the ftp executable file.
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 FTP client in IBM AIX 6.1/7.1 and VIOS 2.2.1.4-FP-25 SP-02 does not properly manage privileges in an RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) environment. Attackers can bypass intended file-read restrictions by exploiting the setuid bit on the ftp executable file, allowing unauthorized access to files outside the user's normal permissions.
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= 2.2.1.4= 6.1= 7.1CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:N/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.
-
Verify AIX or VIOS versionRun 'oslevel -s' on AIX or 'ioslevel' on VIOS to confirm the installed version is AIX 6.1, AIX 7.1, or VIOS 2.2.1.4Affected if The version matches 6100-09, 7100-02, or 2.2.1.4-FP-25 SP-02 (or falls within these release families)
-
Confirm FTP client is installedCheck if the ftp command exists: 'ls -la /usr/bin/ftp'Affected if The /usr/bin/ftp executable exists on the system
-
Inspect setuid bit on ftp executableRun 'ls -la /usr/bin/ftp' and look for an 's' in the owner permissions (first permissions field)Affected if The setuid bit is set (permissions show -r-sr-xr-x or similar with 's' in owner execute)
-
Verify RBAC is enabledCheck the RBAC configuration with 'lsuser -a capabilities <username>' or review /etc/security/user for 'capabilities' attributeAffected if RBAC is configured and the user has elevated capabilities set
A system is affected if it runs AIX 6.1/7.1 or VIOS 2.2.1.4, has the FTP client installed, and the ftp executable has the setuid bit enabled in an RBAC environment.
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 dataRemove the setuid bit from the ftp executable (chmod -s /usr/bin/ftp) or disable the FTP client entirely and migrate to secure alternatives like SFTP/SCP with proper RBAC enforcement.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4845 — 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-2012-4845 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