CVE-2013-1610
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 · uneditedUnquoted Windows search path vulnerability in RDDService in Symantec PGP Desktop 10.0.x through 10.2.x and Symantec Encryption Desktop 10.3.0 before MP3 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse application in the %SYSTEMDRIVE% top-level directory.
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 RDDService in Symantec PGP Desktop and Symantec Encryption Desktop contains an unquoted Windows service path vulnerability. When the service launches, it attempts to execute a binary without proper path quoting, allowing a local attacker to place a malicious executable with a matching name in the %SYSTEMDRIVE% root directory (e.g., C:\), which will be executed with elevated privileges when the service starts.
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= 10.3.0= 10.0.0= 10.0.1= 10.0.2= 10.0.3= 10.1.0= 10.1.1= 10.1.2= 10.2.0= 10.2.1= 10.2.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify RDDService exists on the systemRun 'sc query RDDService' or 'Get-Service -Name RDDService' in PowerShellAffected if The service is present and running
-
Check the service binary path for unquoted spacesRun 'sc qc RDDService' and examine the BINARY_PATH_NAME field. Look for a path that is not enclosed in quotes (e.g., C:\Program Files\Symantec\...)Affected if The binPath does not have surrounding quotes around the executable path
-
Identify installed product versionCheck the Windows registry at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Symantec\Symantec Encryption Desktop\CurrentVersion or look in Add/Remove Programs for 'Symantec Encryption Desktop' or 'PGP Desktop' and note the version numberAffected if The installed version is 10.3.0 (Symantec Encryption Desktop) OR any version from 10.0.0 to 10.2.2 (PGP Desktop)
-
Check for malicious executables in system drive rootList files in the root of the system drive (e.g., C:\) and look for executables with names that may match service binary names (such as pgpsys.exe, pgp.exe, or similar) that could be exploitedAffected if Unexpected executable files exist in the system drive root directory
The system is affected if the RDDService is present with an unquoted path and the installed product version falls within the vulnerable ranges listed.
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 Symantec Encryption Desktop 10.3.0 MP3 or later. As a compensating control, ensure non-privileged users cannot write to the system drive root directory and monitor for suspicious executables in that location.
- 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-2013-1610 — 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-2013-1610 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