CVE-2013-1634
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 denial of service vulnerability exists in some motherboard implementations of Intel e1000e/82574L network controller devices through 2013-02-06 where the device can be brought into a non-processing state when parsing 32 hex, 33 hex, or 34 hex byte values at the 0x47f offset. NOTE: A followup statement from Intel suggests that the root cause of this issue was an incorrectly configured EEPROM image.
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 · moderate confidenceA denial of service vulnerability in Intel e1000e/82574L network controllers allows an attacker to render the device non-functional by sending specifically crafted network packets containing byte values 0x32, 0x33, or 0x34 at offset 0x47f in the packet. The root cause was determined to be an incorrectly configured EEPROM image in the network controller firmware.
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<= 2013-02-06CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
-
Identify Intel 82574L network controller presenceUse system inventory tools such as 'lspci | grep -i ethernet' on Linux, or check Device Manager on Windows, or review system hardware documentation to determine if an Intel 82574L or compatible e1000e network controller is installedAffected if The system has an Intel 82574L or e1000e network controller present
-
Retrieve network controller firmware versionQuery the network controller firmware version using 'ethtool -i <interface>' where <interface> is the network interface name (such as eth0), or use manufacturer-provided diagnostic tools, or check BIOS/UEFI firmware information if exposedAffected if Unable to retrieve firmware version for the Intel 82574L controller
-
Compare firmware date to affected versionExamine the firmware date or version string obtained from the previous step. The affected firmware versions are those dated on or before 2013-02-06. Convert your firmware date to YYYY-MM-DD format and compare against this thresholdAffected if The controller firmware date is on or before 2013-02-06, indicating the system is vulnerable
The system is affected if it contains an Intel 82574L network controller with firmware dated on or before 2013-02-06, making it susceptible to the denial of service attack via specially crafted packets.
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 dataApply BIOS/firmware updates provided by the motherboard or system manufacturer that include the corrected EEPROM image for the Intel network controller. If no update is available, consider network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted network segments.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1634 — 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-2013-1634 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