CVE-2013-1912
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in HAProxy 1.4 through 1.4.22 and 1.5-dev through 1.5-dev17, when HTTP keep-alive is enabled, using HTTP keywords in TCP inspection rules, and running with rewrite rules that appends to requests, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via crafted pipelined HTTP requests that prevent request realignment from occurring.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow in HAProxy's request realignment logic when HTTP keep-alive is enabled alongside TCP inspection rules with HTTP keywords and rewrite rules that append to requests. Crafted pipelined HTTP requests can prevent proper request realignment, leading to stack/heap corruption that can cause denial of service or potentially allow arbitrary code execution.
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= 1.4= 1.4.20= 1.4.22= 1.5CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Identify HAProxy versionRun 'haproxy -v' or check the installed package versionAffected if Version is 1.4, 1.4.20, 1.4.22, or 1.5 (any 1.5.x before dev17)
-
Verify HTTP keep-alive is enabledInspect the HAProxy configuration file for 'option http-server-close', 'option forceclose', or missing 'option httpclose' directives in default or frontend/backend sectionsAffected if HTTP keep-alive is explicitly enabled or defaults to enabled (no explicit keep-alive disabling)
-
Locate TCP inspection rules with HTTP keywordsSearch the HAProxy configuration for 'tcp-inspect-rule' or 'tcp-request' blocks that contain HTTP-related keywords such as 'http_auth', 'http_err', or other HTTP content extraction keywordsAffected if TCP inspection rules using HTTP keywords are defined in the configuration
-
Find rewrite rules that append to requestsSearch the HAProxy configuration for 'http-request' rules with 'set-header', 'set-uri', or similar directives that modify or append content to HTTP request fieldsAffected if Rewrite rules that modify or append to request headers or URI are present
All four conditions must be present simultaneously: affected HAProxy version, HTTP keep-alive enabled, TCP inspection rules with HTTP keywords, AND rewrite rules that append to requests - if any one is missing, the vulnerability is not exploitable in this configuration.
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 HAProxy to a version beyond 1.4.22 or 1.5-dev17. If upgrading is not immediately possible, disable HTTP keep-alive or avoid combining TCP inspection rules with HTTP keywords and rewrite rules that append to requests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1912 — 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-2013-1912 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