CVE-2012-1495
Webcalendar Project Webcalendar ≤ 1.2.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2012-1495 is a critical-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Webcalendar Project Webcalendar. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.4% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2012-1513
Vulnerability Data
install/index.php in WebCalendar before 1.2.5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the form_single_user_login parameter.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Developer assessments and testing (including injection-focused techniques) identify improper neutralization of special elements, and the verifiable flaw remediation corrects them pre-deployment.
Identifies indicators of injection attacks (command, SQL, LDAP, etc.) via anomaly and attack monitoring.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.