AvamarApplication · Emc

CVE-2013-0945

HIGH · 9.3 CVSS v2.0 Published 2013-05-03
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 6.1.101-87 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
EMC Avamar Client before 6.1.101-89 does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.

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 confidence

EMC Avamar Client before version 6.1.101-89 lacks proper SSL certificate hostname validation. The client does not verify that the server hostname matches the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications using any valid certificate.

MitigationUpdate EMC Avamar Client to version 6.1.101-89 or later, which implements proper certificate hostname validation. Until then, avoid using the client on untrusted networks.

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
AvamarApplication
Affected:<= 6.1.101-87= 4.0= 4.1= 5.0= 5.0.0-407= 5.0.4-26= 6.0

CVSS 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
Complete
Integrity
Complete
Availability
Complete

AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate EMC Avamar Client installation
    Identify the system where EMC Avamar Client is installed. Common installation paths include C:\Program Files\EMC Avamar\ or /opt/avamar/ on Linux/Unix systems. Check for the avamar client executable or service.
    Affected if EMC Avamar Client software is present on the system
  2. Determine installed Avamar Client version
    Run the command to retrieve the client version. On Windows, check the file properties of the avamar client binary or examine the installed programs list. On Linux/Unix, run: avamar --version or check /opt/avamar/etc/avamar.version if available.
    Affected if The version returned matches any of these affected versions: <= 6.1.101-87, 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.0.0-407, 5.0.4-26, or 6.0
  3. Compare version against fixed release
    Verify the exact version number found in the previous step against the fixed version 6.1.101-89. Any version lower than 6.1.101-89 is vulnerable.
    Affected if Installed version is lower than 6.1.101-89 or cannot be determined to be 6.1.101-89 or later

The system is affected if EMC Avamar Client is installed and the version is lower than 6.1.101-89, or matches any of the specific affected versions listed (4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.0.0-407, 5.0.4-26, 6.0).

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 6.1.101-87
Interim mitigation

Update EMC Avamar Client to version 6.1.101-89 or later, which implements proper certificate hostname validation. Until then, avoid using the client on untrusted networks.

Recommended fix High confidence

Avamar Client 6.1.101-89 or later

  1. 1. Identify the current version of EMC Avamar Client installed in your environment
  2. 2. Download EMC Avamar Client version 6.1.101-89 or later from EMC's support portal
  3. 3. Plan upgrade during a maintenance window to minimize disruption
  4. 4. Backup current Avamar Client configuration
  5. 5. Install the upgraded Avamar Client version 6.1.101-89 or newer
  6. 6. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the client version
  7. 7. Test SSL connections to ensure certificate validation is working properly
Caveat Review EMC Avamar compatibility matrix to ensure the client version is compatible with your Avamar server version before upgrading

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Avamar Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $2,970
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0945 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-0945 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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