CVE-2012-5662
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 · uneditedx3270 before 3.3.12ga12 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 confidencex3270 before version 3.3.12ga12 lacks proper SSL/TLS certificate hostname validation. The application does not verify that the server hostname matches the Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field in the X.509 certificate, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers using any valid certificate.
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<= 3.3.12= 3.3.5= 3.3.6= 3.3.7= 3.3.8= 3.3.9= 3.3.10= 3.3.11= 3.3.12CVSS 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.
-
Determine x3270 installed versionRun 'x3270 --version' or check the package management system (dpkg -l x3270, rpm -qa | grep x3270) to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if The version is 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10, 3.3.11, or 3.3.12 (versions through 3.3.12 are affected)
-
Verify SSL/TLS connectivity is in useExamine how x3270 is invoked or configured. Look for SSL-enabled connection strings (typically using 'ssl://' or 'tls://' prefix, or port 992 for Telnet/SSL) in scripts, configuration files, or command-line argumentsAffected if SSL/TLS connections are being used with the vulnerable x3270 version
-
Inspect SSL certificate hostname validationCapture and analyze network traffic during an SSL connection to a server, or examine the x3270 source code if available to determine whether the application performs CN or subjectAltName verification against the connected hostnameAffected if The application does not validate that the server hostname matches the certificate CN or subjectAltName field
You are affected if you run x3270 version 3.3.12 or earlier AND use SSL/TLS connections, because the application will accept any valid certificate without verifying the hostname matches.
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 x3270 to version 3.3.12ga12 or later which includes proper certificate hostname validation. Alternatively, implement hostname verification in the SSL connection code to match the server's presented certificate against the expected hostname.
- 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-2012-5662 — 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-2012-5662 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