SetuptoolsApplication · Python
CVE-2013-1633
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 · uneditedeasy_install in setuptools before 0.7 uses HTTP to retrieve packages from the PyPI repository, and does not perform integrity checks on package contents, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted response to the default use of the product.
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 confidenceeasy_install in setuptools versions before 0.7 uses unencrypted HTTP to retrieve packages from the PyPI package repository and performs no integrity verification on downloaded package contents. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers on the network path to intercept the HTTP traffic and inject malicious code into packages, achieving arbitrary code execution on the victim's system.
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
SetuptoolsApplication
<= 0.7b4= 0.6.40= 0.6.41= 0.6.42= 0.6.43= 0.6.44= 0.6.45= 0.6.46= 0.6.47= 0.6.48= 0.6.49CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 installed setuptools versionRun 'python -c "import setuptools; print(setuptools.__version__)"' or 'pip show setuptools' to retrieve the version numberAffected if The version is 0.7b4 or lower, or matches any of these: 0.6.40, 0.6.41, 0.6.42, 0.6.43, 0.6.44, 0.6.45, 0.6.46, 0.6.47, 0.6.48, 0.6.49
-
Verify easy_install is presentRun 'easy_install --version' or check if the easy_install script exists in your Python Scripts or bin directoryAffected if easy_install command is available and the setuptools version is in the affected range from step 1
-
Check PyPI configuration for HTTP usageInspect your .pypirc file (typically in your home directory) or pip.conf for the repository URL configuration; look for 'http://' instead of 'https://'Affected if PyPI is configured to use http://pypi.python.org or http://pypi.org instead of https://, and setuptools version is vulnerable
-
Verify default PyPI URL in useRun 'python -c "from setuptools.pypi import PyPI; print(PyPI.RESOURCE_NAME)"' or observe network traffic when running easy_install to see if HTTP is usedAffected if easy_install attempts to connect over HTTP (port 80) to PyPI rather than HTTPS (port 443)
You are affected if setuptools version is 0.7b4 or lower (including any 0.6.40-0.6.49 variants) and easy_install is used to fetch packages from PyPI over unencrypted HTTP.
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 setuptools to version 0.7 or later, which uses HTTPS for PyPI connections and verifies package integrity through checksums.
Fix this in Setuptools
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1633 — 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-2013-1633 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