FolsomApplication · Openstack

CVE-2013-2161

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2013-08-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
XML injection vulnerability in account/utils.py in OpenStack Swift Folsom, Grizzly, and Havana allows attackers to trigger invalid or spoofed Swift responses via an account name.

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 confidence

This is an XML injection vulnerability in OpenStack Swift's account/utils.py module affecting versions Folsom, Grizzly, and Havana. The vulnerability allows attackers to inject malicious XML content through account names, which can result in invalid or completely spoofed Swift responses being returned to users.

MitigationInput validation and proper XML encoding should be implemented for account names before they are used in XML generation. Upgrading to patched versions of OpenStack Swift (newer than Havana) is recommended.

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
FolsomApplication
Affected:all versions
GrizzlyApplication
Affected:all versions
HavanaApplication
Affected:all versions
OpensuseOperating system
Affected:= 12.3

CVSS 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
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify OpenStack Swift installation
    Run 'swift --version' or check for swift packages via package manager (dpkg -l | grep swift or rpm -qa | grep swift)
    Affected if Swift is installed and version is Folsom, Grizzly, or Havana
  2. Verify Swift version number
    Compare installed Swift version to affected releases: Folsom (2012.x), Grizzly (1.8.x - 1.13.x), Havana (1.9.x - 1.13.x). Check with 'swift --version' or package manager.
    Affected if Installed version falls within Folsom, Grizzly, or Havana release cycles
  3. Locate vulnerable account/utils.py module
    Find the account/utils.py file in the Swift installation path, typically in /usr/lib/python*/site-packages/swift/account/ or via 'python -c "import swift.account.utils; print(swift.account.utils.__file__)"'
    Affected if The account/utils.py file exists and originates from an affected Swift version
  4. Check if account server is enabled
    Examine Swift proxy-server.conf and account-server.conf configuration files for enabled pipelines. The account server is typically enabled by default in standard Swift deployments.
    Affected if Account server is enabled and accessible (standard configuration)
  5. Verify XML processing with account names
    Review Swift logs or test account creation with various account name inputs. The vulnerability triggers when account names are used in XML response generation.
    Affected if Account functionality is active and processes account names into XML responses

Your environment is affected if OpenStack Swift versions Folsom, Grizzly, or Havana are installed with the account server enabled and processing account names into XML output.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Input validation and proper XML encoding should be implemented for account names before they are used in XML generation. Upgrading to patched versions of OpenStack Swift (newer than Havana) is recommended.

Fix this in Folsom Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,790
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,464.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2161 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-2161 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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