CVE-2013-0300
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in ownCloud 4.5.x before 4.5.7 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that (1) change the default view via the v parameter to apps/calendar/ajax/changeview.php, mount arbitrary (2) Google Drive or (3) Dropbox folders via vectors related to addRootCertificate.php, dropbox.php and google.php in apps/files_external/ajax/, or (4) change the authentication server URL via unspecified vectors to apps/user_webdavauth/settings.php.
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) vulnerabilities in ownCloud 4.5.x before 4.5.7 allow remote attackers to hijack user authentication for malicious requests targeting multiple endpoints: changing calendar default view (apps/calendar/ajax/changeview.php), mounting arbitrary Google Drive or Dropbox folders (apps/files_external/ajax/), and modifying authentication server URL (apps/user_webdavauth/settings.php).
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= 4.5.0= 4.5.1= 4.5.2= 4.5.3= 4.5.4= 4.5.5= 4.5.6CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Determine installed ownCloud versionLocate the ownCloud version file (typically version.php in the root directory or in config/) or check the admin panel for the version numberAffected if Installed version is 4.5.0, 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, or 4.5.6
-
Verify calendar app is enabledCheck if the calendar application is installed and active by examining the apps/calendar directory presence and checking the ownCloud apps database or admin panelAffected if Calendar app is enabled and ownCloud version is in the 4.5.0-4.5.6 range
-
Verify external storage app is enabledCheck if the files_external app is installed by examining the apps/files_external directory or checking the ownCloud apps databaseAffected if External storage app is enabled and ownCloud version is in the 4.5.0-4.5.6 range
-
Verify webdav authentication app is enabledCheck if the user_webdavauth app is installed by examining the apps/user_webdavauth directory or checking the ownCloud apps databaseAffected if WebDAV authentication app is enabled and ownCloud version is in the 4.5.0-4.5.6 range
You are affected if your ownCloud installation is version 4.5.0 through 4.5.6 AND any of these modules are enabled: calendar, external storage (Google Drive/Dropbox mounts), or webdav authentication.
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 ownCloud 4.5.7 or later which contains CSRF protections. Alternatively, implement anti-CSRF tokens for all state-changing POST endpoints in the affected modules.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0300 — 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-2013-0300 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