CVE-2013-0271
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 MXit protocol plugin in libpurple in Pidgin before 2.10.7 might allow remote attackers to create or overwrite files via a crafted (1) mxit or (2) mxit/imagestrips pathname.
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 MXit protocol plugin in libpurple (used by Pidgin) before version 2.10.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows remote attackers to create or overwrite arbitrary files on the local system by using specially crafted mxit or mxit/imagestrips pathnames. This is a file write vulnerability stemming from insufficient path sanitization in the plugin's file handling logic.
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<= 2.10.6= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.1.0= 2.1.1= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 2.3.0= 2.3.1= 2.4.0CVSS 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 if Pidgin is installedOn Linux: dpkg -l | grep pidgin or rpm -qa | grep pidgin. On Windows: Check Program Files for pidgin folder or look for pidgin.exe in common installation paths.Affected if Pidgin is not installed - not affected
-
Determine installed Pidgin versionOn Linux: pidgin --version or apt-cache policy pidgin. On Windows: Right-click pidgin.exe, select Properties, view Version tab.Affected if Version is 2.10.7 or higher - not affected. Version is 2.10.6 or lower, or one of the specific versions listed (2.0.0 through 2.4.0), or unknown - potentially affected
-
Identify if MXit protocol plugin is presentLook for libmxit.so (Linux) or MXit.dll (Windows) in the libpurple/plugins or plugins directory within the Pidgin installation folder.Affected if MXit plugin file exists - vulnerable configuration possible
-
Check if MXit protocol is enabled in PidginOpen Pidgin, go to Accounts > Manage Accounts. Look for any account configured with the MXit protocol, or check Accounts > Add Account to see if MXit appears in the protocol dropdown.Affected if MXit protocol is enabled or an MXit account is configured - vulnerable to exploitation
User is affected if Pidgin version is 2.10.6 or lower (including specific versions 2.0.0 through 2.4.0) AND the MXit protocol plugin is installed and enabled.
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 Pidgin 2.10.7 or later which contains the patched version of the MXit protocol plugin. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider disabling the MXit protocol plugin as a temporary mitigation.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0271 — 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-2013-0271 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