FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2012-5645
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 · uneditedA denial of service flaw was found in the way the server component of Freeciv before 2.3.4 processed certain packets. A remote attacker could send a specially-crafted packet that, when processed would lead to memory exhaustion or excessive CPU consumption.
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 · moderate confidenceFreeciv server before version 2.3.4 contains a vulnerability in its packet processing logic. A remote attacker can send a specially-crafted packet that, when processed by the server, triggers either memory exhaustion (likely due to unbounded memory allocation) or excessive CPU consumption (likely due to inefficient or infinite loop in packet handling).
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
FedoraOperating system
= 16= 17= 18< 2.3.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
-
Check if Freeciv server package is installedOn Fedora systems, run: rpm -qa | grep -i freeciv. On other Linux systems, check for installed freeciv-server package or binary at common paths like /usr/games/freeciv-server, /usr/bin/freeciv-server, or /usr/local/bin/freeciv-serverAffected if No Freeciv package or server binary is found - not vulnerable since the server is not installed
-
Determine installed Freeciv server versionRun: freeciv-server --version or rpm -q freeciv-server (Fedora). Compare the output version number against 2.3.4Affected if Version is lower than 2.3.4 (e.g., 2.3.3, 2.3.0, 2.2.x, etc.)
-
Check if Freeciv server process is runningRun: ps aux | grep -i freeciv-server or check for listening port (default 5556). Use netstat -anp | grep 5556 or ss -anp | grep 5556Affected if Server process is running and accepting network connections - vulnerability is remotely exploitable
-
Verify server bind address for network exposureCheck server configuration files (typically in /etc/freeciv/ or ~/.freeciv/) or running process command line for -l or --bind parameters to see if server binds to 0.0.0.0 or a public IP versus localhost onlyAffected if Server binds to 0.0.0.0 or a public-facing IP address, making it reachable from the network
User is affected if Freeciv server version is below 2.3.4, the server process is actively running, and it is exposed to the network.
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 data2.3.4
Upgrade to Freeciv 2.3.4 or later. If upgrading is not immediately possible, consider network-level filtering to restrict unauthorized access to the game server port.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-5645 — 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-2012-5645 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