CVE-2013-1028
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 IPSec implementation in Apple Mac OS X before 10.8.5, when Hybrid Auth is used, does not verify X.509 certificates from security gateways, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof security gateways and obtain sensitive information via a crafted 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 confidenceThe IPSec implementation in Apple Mac OS X before 10.8.5 fails to verify X.509 certificates from security gateways when Hybrid Auth mode is enabled, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof VPN gateways using crafted certificates and intercept sensitive communications.
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<= 6.1.4= 1.0.0= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.1.0= 1.1.1= 1.1.2= 1.1.3= 1.1.4= 1.1.5= 2.0= 2.0.0<= 10.8.4= 10.8.0= 10.8.1= 10.8.2= 10.8.3CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Check Mac OS X versionRun 'sw_vers -productVersion' in Terminal to obtain the installed OS version.Affected if Version is 10.8.4 or lower (including 10.8.0, 10.8.1, 10.8.2, 10.8.3)
-
Verify IPSec VPN configuration existsRun 'scutil --nc list' to list all network configurations, or inspect /Library/Preferences/com.apple.networkConnect.plist for VPN profiles.Affected if An IPSec-based VPN configuration is present on the system
-
Confirm Hybrid Auth mode is enabledInspect the IPSec VPN configuration details. On Mac OS X, Hybrid Auth is typically configured in System Preferences under Network > VPN (if using IPSec). Check the authentication settings for the VPN connection.Affected if The IPSec VPN is configured to use Hybrid Authentication (Hybrid Auth) mode, which relies on server certificate verification that is missing in affected versions
-
Verify X.509 certificate verification behaviorAttempt to connect to the VPN gateway using a self-signed or invalid certificate. Observe whether the connection is rejected or accepted without proper verification warning.Affected if The VPN accepts connections to gateways with invalid, expired, or self-signed X.509 certificates without warning or rejection when Hybrid Auth is enabled
A system is affected if it runs Mac OS X 10.8.4 or earlier AND has an IPSec VPN configured with Hybrid Auth mode enabled, allowing acceptance of invalid X.509 certificates from VPN gateways.
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 to Mac OS X 10.8.5 or later which includes proper X.509 certificate verification for IPSec Hybrid Auth connections. Alternatively, disable Hybrid Auth and use certificate-based authentication with full verification.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1028 — 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-2013-1028 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