CVE-2013-10053
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 · uneditedA remote command execution vulnerability exists in ZPanel version 10.0.0.2 in its htpasswd module. When creating .htaccess files, the inHTUsername field is passed unsanitized to a system() call that invokes the system’s htpasswd binary. By injecting shell metacharacters into the username field, an authenticated attacker can execute arbitrary system commands. Exploitation requires a valid ZPanel account—such as one in the default Users, Resellers, or Administrators groups—but no elevated privileges.
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 confidenceA command injection vulnerability in ZPanel 10.0.0.2's htpasswd module allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary system commands by injecting shell metacharacters into the inHTUsername field, which is passed unsanitized to a system() call that invokes the htpasswd binary.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Locate ZPanel installation and versionCheck for ZPanel installation directories (commonly /etc/zpanel, /var/zpanel, or C:\ZPanel) and look for version files or examine the admin interface for the installed version number.Affected if ZPanel version 10.0.0.2 is installed
-
Identify htpasswd module presenceLook for the htpasswd management module within the ZPanel modules directory - typically found under the admin or password management sections.Affected if The htpasswd module is present and accessible in the ZPanel installation
-
Examine htpasswd module code for vulnerable system callInspect the htpasswd module source code (typically a .php file) for direct system() function calls that use the inHTUsername form input without sanitization.Affected if The module code contains system() calls that pass user-supplied username input directly to the shell
-
Verify the vulnerable parameter nameSearch the htpasswd module code for the inHTUsername parameter being used within system() or exec() functions without proper escaping or validation.Affected if The inHTUsername parameter is passed unsanitized to a shell-executing function
Your environment is affected if ZPanel version 10.0.0.2 is installed with the htpasswd module enabled and the module code contains unsanitized system() calls using the inHTUsername parameter.
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 ZPanel to a patched version or implement strict input validation to sanitize the username field before passing it to system() calls, preventing shell metacharacter injection.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-10053 — 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-2013-10053 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