CVE-2013-0974
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 · uneditedStoreKit in Apple iOS before 6.1 does not properly handle the disabling of JavaScript within the preferences configuration of Mobile Safari, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and execute JavaScript code via a web site with a Smart App Banner.
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 confidenceStoreKit in Apple iOS before 6.1 fails to respect the user's JavaScript disable preference in Mobile Safari settings. When a user disables JavaScript for security reasons, Smart App Banners (used for app promotion links) can still execute JavaScript code, bypassing the user's intended security restriction.
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<= 6.0.2= 6.0= 6.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Check iOS versionNavigate to Settings > General > About > Version, or check via iTunes or MDM toolsAffected if Version is 6.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, or any version earlier than 6.1
-
Verify JavaScript is disabled in SafariGo to Settings > Safari and confirm the 'Enable JavaScript' toggle is turned OFFAffected if JavaScript is disabled in Safari settings (this is the user preference that the vulnerability bypasses)
-
Confirm exposure to Smart App BannersVisit websites in Mobile Safari that use Smart App Banners (websites with <meta name="apple-itunes-app" content="app-id=..."> in their HTML)Affected if You visit sites with Smart App Banners while running an affected iOS version AND JavaScript is disabled
You are affected if you run iOS 6.0 through 6.0.2, have disabled JavaScript in Safari settings, and visit websites displaying Smart App Banners, because the banners will execute JavaScript despite your disabled preference.
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 affected iOS devices to iOS 6.1 or later. For legacy systems that cannot upgrade, users should be aware that Smart App Banners may execute JavaScript regardless of Safari JavaScript preferences.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-0974 — 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-2013-0974 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