CVE-2013-0173
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 · uneditedForeman before 1.1 uses a salt of "foreman" to hash root passwords, which makes it easier for attackers to guess the password via a brute force attack.
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 confidenceForeman before version 1.1 used a hardcoded salt of 'foreman' when hashing root passwords, making the hashing predictable and vulnerable to pre-computed rainbow table attacks. This weak salting mechanism allows attackers to more easily brute force passwords since the salt value is known and identical for all installations.
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<= 1.0CVSS 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 installed Foreman versionRun `foreman --version` or check the package version (e.g., `rpm -q foreman` or `dpkg -l foreman`)Affected if Version is 1.0 or lower (1.0, 0.x, etc.)
-
Identify if user authentication is configuredCheck if the Foreman database contains user records with password hashes - query the `users` table for rows with a `password_hash` column containing valuesAffected if Any user accounts (especially admin/root) exist in the database with stored password hashes
-
Examine password hash format in databaseInspect the `password_hash` field in the `users` table - the vulnerable hashes would be salted with the known salt 'foreman' rather than a unique per-user saltAffected if Password hashes use a predictable salt (the same salt 'foreman' appears in all password hashes)
If Foreman version is 1.0 or lower and has user accounts with stored password hashes, the environment is vulnerable to rainbow table attacks on those passwords.
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 to Foreman 1.1 or later which implements proper unique salting, or regenerate all root passwords after applying the fix to ensure they use the new secure hashing mechanism.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0173 — 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-2013-0173 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