CVE-2013-0529
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 Browser in IBM Sterling Connect:Direct 1.4 before 1.4.0.11 and 1.5 through 1.5.0.1 does not set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
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 Browser component in IBM Sterling Connect:Direct versions 1.4 before 1.4.0.11 and 1.5 through 1.5.0.1 does not set the 'secure' flag on session cookies during HTTPS sessions. This allows session cookies to be transmitted over insecure HTTP connections, enabling remote attackers to intercept and capture them via network traffic analysis.
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= 1.4.0.0= 1.4.0.2= 1.4.0.3= 1.4.0.6= 1.4.0.7= 1.4.0.10= 1.5.0.0= 1.5.0.1CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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.
-
Identify the installed version of IBM Sterling Connect:Direct UIAccess the product's About or Version information page within the UI, or inspect version files in the installation directory. Common locations include installation logs, a 'version' file, or the help/about section of the web interface.Affected if The version is 1.4.0.0, 1.4.0.2, 1.4.0.3, 1.4.0.6, 1.4.0.7, 1.4.0.10, 1.5.0.0, or 1.5.0.1.
-
Verify the UI is accessed over HTTPSCheck the URL in the browser address bar when accessing the Sterling Connect:Direct User Interface. Confirm the protocol shows 'https://' rather than 'http://'.Affected if The UI is accessed using HTTPS.
-
Inspect session cookies for the Secure flagUse browser developer tools (F12), a web proxy like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP, or network packet capture to intercept HTTPS traffic. Examine all session cookies sent from the server to the client. Look for the 'Secure' attribute in the Set-Cookie headers or cookie properties.Affected if Session cookies are transmitted over HTTPS but do NOT contain the 'Secure' attribute in their Set-Cookie headers.
If the installed version matches any of the affected versions (1.4.0.x before 1.4.0.11 or 1.5.0.0-1.5.0.1) and the UI is accessed via HTTPS, session cookies lack the Secure flag and are vulnerable to interception over HTTP.
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 dataApply vendor patches 1.4.0.11 or later for version 1.4.x, or upgrade from 1.5.x to a patched release. Additionally, enforce HTTPS-only communication to prevent cookie exposure over unencrypted channels.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0529 — 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-2013-0529 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