“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS v2 base score.
This CVE was only ever scored under CVSS v2.0. NVD CVSS v2.0 base 7.5 — NVD rates that HIGH (NVD's v2 bands: LOW 0.0–3.9 / MEDIUM 4.0–6.9 / HIGH 7.0–10.0; no CRITICAL band). Vector AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P. CVSS v2 is an older, coarser metric than v3.1/v4.0 (no Scope, no User Interaction, no Attack Requirements), so it is not directly comparable to a v3 or v4 score. NVD has never re-scored this record under v3. EPSS predicts 1.3% exploitation probability in the next 30 days; it does not lift the v2 base. EPSS sets EG Risk's exploitation input. Confidence: LOW.
No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2012 — if the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names; if not, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) or retire the product.
The Carlo Gavazzi EOS-Box
does not check the validity of the data before executing queries. By accessing the SQL table of certain pages that do not require authentication, attackers can leak information from the device. This could allow the attacker to compromise confidentiality.
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2012. If the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names within your standard update timelines; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) or retire the product.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
December 23, 2012
April 29, 2026
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
Showing the most recent 85 of 131 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 15 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 46 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2012-6427
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.