CVE-2012-5583
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 · uneditedphpCAS before 1.3.2 does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.
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 confidencephpCAS versions prior to 1.3.2 fail to validate that the server hostname matches the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field during SSL/TLS verification. This means the library accepts any valid X.509 certificate presented by a server, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept connections by presenting a valid certificate for their own server.
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<= 1.3.1= 1.3.0CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/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 phpCAS library versionLocate the phpCAS library in your application (commonly in vendor/apereo/phpcas or similar directory). Check the version.php file, composer.json, or the main phpCAS source file for a version constant or comment indicating the version number.Affected if The version is 1.3.1, 1.3.0, or any version lower than 1.3.2.
-
Determine if CAS connections use SSL/TLSReview your application configuration and phpCAS initialization code to see whether the CAS server is accessed via HTTPS (ssl) or TLS protocol.Affected if The CAS server URL begins with 'https://', indicating SSL/TLS verification is expected to occur.
-
Check for SSL certificate validation configurationInspect the phpCAS client initialization code for calls to methods such as setCasServerCACert(), setNoCasServerValidation(), or similar configuration options that control SSL certificate verification behavior.Affected if The code uses setNoCasServerValidation() or equivalent method that disables certificate validation, or uses setCasServerCACert() without proper hostname verification in affected versions.
-
Verify OpenSSL PHP extension is loadedRun 'php -m' or check phpinfo() to confirm the OpenSSL extension is enabled, as this is required for SSL/TLS certificate validation to occur.Affected if OpenSSL extension is loaded AND conditions from steps 1-3 are met, indicating the vulnerability applies.
Your environment is affected if you are running phpCAS version 1.3.1 or earlier and your CAS client connects to the server over HTTPS, as the library fails to validate the certificate hostname against the server being accessed.
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 phpCAS to version 1.3.2 or later, which implements proper hostname verification against the certificate's CN and subjectAltName fields. If upgrading is not possible, ensure all CAS client connections occur over trusted networks or VPNs.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-5583 — 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-2012-5583 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