CVE-2012-6461
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 X.509 certificate-validation functionality in the https implementation in Opera before 12.10 allows remote attackers to trigger a false indication of successful revocation-status checking by causing a failure of a single checking service.
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 X.509 certificate-validation in Opera before 12.10 contains a logic flaw where revocation-status checking would incorrectly report success when a single checking service fails, potentially allowing man-in-the-middle attacks to go undetected.
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<= 12.10= 1.00= 2.00= 2.10= 2.12= 3.00= 3.10= 3.21= 3.50= 3.51= 3.60= 3.61CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Check if Opera browser is installedOn Windows, check Program Files/Opera or look for opera.exe in common installation paths. On Linux, run 'which opera' or check /usr/bin/opera. On macOS, check /Applications for Opera.app.Affected if Opera browser is present on the system
-
Determine the installed Opera version numberRun 'opera --version' from command line, or open Opera and navigate to Help > About Opera to view the version string.Affected if A version number is returned that can be compared against the affected range
-
Compare installed version to the affected rangeParse the version number and check if it is less than or equal to 12.10 (for example: 12.05, 12.00, 11.x, 10.x would all be affected).Affected if The installed version is 12.10 or any version lower than 12.10 (versions such as 12.05, 11.64, 10.x are all within the <= 12.10 range)
-
Note specific version identifiers if displayedSome Opera installations may display version strings differently (such as 3.x series mentioned in the affected products). Cross-reference any displayed version format against the full list of affected versions provided.Affected if The displayed version matches any of the versions listed in the affected products (1.00, 2.00, 2.10, 2.12, 3.00, 3.10, 3.21, 3.50, 3.51, 3.60, 3.61, or any version <= 12.10)
The environment is affected if Opera browser is installed and its version is 12.10 or lower, since the flawed certificate revocation checking logic exists in those versions.
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 Opera to version 12.10 or later, or migrate to an alternative browser that properly handles certificate revocation failures by failing secure.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-6461 — 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-2012-6461 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