CVE-2013-2324
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in HP Storage Data Protector 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, and 7.01 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors, aka ZDI-CAN-1629.
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 confidenceHP Storage Data Protector versions 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, and 7.01 contain an unspecified vulnerability (ZDI-CAN-1629) that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code without authentication. The CVSS 10 score indicates network-exploitable code execution with no user interaction required, suggesting a pre-authentication buffer overflow or similar memory corruption flaw in the backup software's network services.
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= 6.20= 6.21= 7.00= 7.01CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 HP Storage Data Protector versionOpen Windows Registry and navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Hewlett-Packard\Data Protector\CurrentVersion, or run 'omnidbutil -version' from the Data Protector bin directory. On Linux, check /opt/omni/.version or run 'omnidbutil -version'Affected if The displayed version is exactly 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, or 7.01
-
Verify Data Protector Cell Manager service is runningOn Windows, open Services and look for 'HP Data Protector Cell Manager' or run 'sc query omnirc' in an elevated command prompt. On Linux, run 'ps -ef | grep omni' to check for running Data Protector processesAffected if The Cell Manager service or omnirc/omni processes are running and the version matches affected versions from step 1
-
Confirm network listeners on Data Protector portsRun 'netstat -an | findstr "5555 5565"' or use a network scanner to check if ports 5555, 5565, or related Data Protector service ports are in LISTEN state. Also verify firewall rules allow inbound connections on these portsAffected if Ports 5555, 5565, or other Data Protector ports are open and listening on network interfaces accessible to untrusted networks
You are affected if HP Storage Data Protector version 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, or 7.01 is installed AND the Cell Manager service is running with network listeners exposed to accessible network segments.
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 HP Storage Data Protector to a version beyond 7.01 (HP released patches for this vulnerability in 2013). If upgrade is not immediately feasible, restrict network access to Data Protector ports (typically 5555, 5565, and related services) to trusted management networks only.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2324 — 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-2013-2324 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