CVE-2013-2053
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 the atodn function in Openswan before 2.6.39, when Opportunistic Encryption is enabled and an RSA key is being used, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (pluto IKE daemon crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via crafted DNS TXT records. NOTE: this might be the same vulnerability as CVE-2013-2052 and CVE-2013-2054.
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 vulnerability in the atodn function of Openswan versions prior to 2.6.39. The flaw is triggered when Opportunistic Encryption is enabled and RSA keys are in use, allowing attackers to send specially crafted DNS TXT records that overflow a buffer, leading to IKE daemon (pluto) crash and potential 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<= 2.6.38= 2.6.01= 2.6.02= 2.6.03= 2.6.04= 2.6.05= 2.6.06= 2.6.07= 2.6.08= 2.6.09= 2.6.10= 2.6.11CVSS 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.
-
Identify Openswan installation and versionRun 'ipsec --version' or check the package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q openswan' or 'dpkg -l openswan') to determine if Openswan is installed and what versionAffected if Version is 2.6.38 or lower, or matches any of the affected versions (2.6.01 through 2.6.11)
-
Locate Openswan configuration filesCheck common config paths: /etc/ipsec.conf, /etc/ipsec.d/, /etc/openswan/ for configuration filesAffected if Configuration files exist indicating an active Openswan installation
-
Verify Opportunistic Encryption is enabledSearch the ipsec.conf file for 'oe=yes' or ' opportunistic_encryption=yes' or similar OE directives in the config or in definedconnsAffected if Opportunistic Encryption (OE) is explicitly enabled in the ipsec configuration
-
Confirm RSA key usage for Opportunistic EncryptionCheck /etc/ipsec.secrets or the ipsec.d/ directory for RSA key entries (look for 'RSA { ... }' blocks) and verify they are referenced in OE connectionsAffected if RSA private keys are configured and associated with Opportunistic Encryption connections
You are affected if Openswan version is 2.6.38 or earlier AND Opportunistic Encryption is enabled AND RSA keys are configured for use with OE.
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 Openswan to version 2.6.39 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider disabling Opportunistic Encryption or restricting RSA key usage until the upgrade can be completed.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2053 — 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-2013-2053 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