CVE-2013-0214
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Samba Web Administration Tool (SWAT) in Samba 3.x before 3.5.21, 3.6.x before 3.6.12, and 4.x before 4.0.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users by leveraging knowledge of a password and composing requests that perform SWAT actions.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Samba Web Administration Tool (SWAT) allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated sessions by tricking logged-in administrators into executing unintended SWAT actions. The attacker needs knowledge of a valid password to compose malicious requests that perform administrative operations on behalf of authenticated users.
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= 3.6.0= 3.6.1= 3.6.2= 3.6.3= 3.6.4= 3.6.5= 3.6.6= 3.6.7= 3.6.8= 3.6.9= 3.6.10= 3.6.11CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 SWAT is enabledInspect your Samba configuration file (typically /etc/samba/smb.conf or /etc/smb.conf) and inetd/xinetd configuration files for SWAT entries. SWAT is typically configured under inetd or xinetd on port 901. Also check if the swat binary exists at /usr/sbin/swat or similar path.Affected if SWAT is enabled and accessible (configured in inetd/xinetd or running as a standalone service)
-
Identify installed Samba versionRun 'smbstatus --version' or 'smbd --version' or check the package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q samba' or 'dpkg -l samba') to determine the exact Samba version installed on the system.Affected if The installed version matches 3.6.0, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.6.6, 3.6.7, 3.6.8, 3.6.9, 3.6.10, or 3.6.11
You are affected if SWAT is enabled and the Samba version is any of the listed affected versions (3.6.0 through 3.6.11), as the CSRF protection was only added in versions 3.6.12, 3.5.21, or 4.0.2 and later.
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 Samba to version 3.5.21, 3.6.12, or 4.0.2 or later which contain CSRF protection fixes. Alternatively, disable SWAT if not needed and use command-line tools for Samba administration.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0214 — 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-2013-0214 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