CVE-2013-0680
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in the web server in Cogent Real-Time Systems Cogent DataHub before 7.3.0, OPC DataHub before 6.4.22, Cascade DataHub before 6.4.22 on Windows, and DataHub QuickTrend before 7.3.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a long HTTP header.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in the Cogent DataHub web server component allows remote attackers to send specially long HTTP headers, causing either denial of service via daemon crash or potentially remote code execution. The vulnerability affects multiple DataHub products on Windows prior to version 7.3.0 (Cogent DataHub, DataHub QuickTrend) or 6.4.22 (OPC DataHub, Cascade DataHub).
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<= 7.2.2= 7.0= 7.0.2= 7.1.0= 7.1.1= 7.1.1.63= 7.1.2<= 6.4.21= 6.4.20<= 6.4.21= 6.4.20<= 7.2.2CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed Cogent DataHub productCheck installed programs list or running processes for Cogent DataHub, OPC DataHub, Cascade DataHub, or DataHub QuickTrendAffected if Any of these products are installed on the system
-
Find installed versionUse the program's About or Help menu, check the executable properties, or look in Windows registry under the product's installation keyAffected if Version cannot be determined or is below the fixed releases
-
Compare version to affected rangesFor Cogent DataHub or DataHub QuickTrend: check if version <= 7.2.2. For OPC DataHub or Cascade DataHub: check if version <= 6.4.21Affected if Installed version falls within or below the listed affected versions (7.2.2 or lower for Cogent DataHub/Quicktrend, 6.4.21 or lower for OPC/Cascade DataHub)
-
Verify web server component statusCheck if the DataHub web server feature is enabled or the web server port (typically 80 or 8080) is in use by the DataHub processAffected if The built-in HTTP server is active and accessible on the network
A user is affected if they have Cogent DataHub (version <= 7.2.2), DataHub Quicktrend (version <= 7.2.2), OPC DataHub (version <= 6.4.21), or Cascade DataHub (version <= 6.4.21) installed with the web server component 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 Cogent DataHub to version 7.3.0 or later, and OPC DataHub/Cascade DataHub to version 6.4.22 or later to patch the HTTP header parsing vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0680 — 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-2013-0680 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