CVE-2013-2325
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-1633.
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 allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code without authentication, assigned ZDI-CAN-1633. The CVSS 10 score indicates a critical flaw exploitable over the network requiring no user interaction or credentials.
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.
-
Identify installed HP Storage Data Protector versionOn Windows, check the registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Hewlett-Packard\Data Protector\Install\CurrentVersion or inspect the program files directory for version information. On Linux/Unix, run 'omc -version' or check /opt/HP/DataProtector/etc/omnirc for version variables.Affected if The installed version matches exactly 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, or 7.01
-
Verify Data Protector services are runningOn Windows, open Services and look for 'HP Data Protector' services. On Linux/Unix, run 'omnicellist' or check for running processes like 'omniback', 'omni', or 'xomni'. Check if the Cell Manager service is active.Affected if Any HP Data Protector services are currently running on the system
-
Determine network exposure of Data Protector portsUse netstat or ss commands to check for listening ports commonly used by Data Protector (typically 5555 for the Cell Manager, 5556 for the Message Server, and 5557 for the OmniBack II service). Run 'netstat -an | grep -E "(555[5-7])"' on Linux or 'netstat -an | findstr "5555 5556 5557"' on Windows.Affected if Data Protector services are listening on network-accessible ports without proper network segmentation or firewall restrictions
-
Check for unauthenticated service accessibilityAttempt to connect to the Data Protector service port (default 5555) from an untrusted network segment using a tool like telnet or nc: 'nc -zv <target> 5555'. Verify whether the service accepts connections without requiring authentication credentials.Affected if The Data Protector service port accepts connections from untrusted networks without requiring authentication
You are affected if HP Storage Data Protector version 6.20, 6.21, 7.00, or 7.01 is installed AND the Data Protector services are running and accessible over the network.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade HP Storage Data Protector to a patched version beyond 7.01. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, restrict network access to the Data Protector services and monitor for Indicators of Compromise, as remote code execution vulnerabilities in backup software are frequently targeted by attackers.
HP Storage Data Protector 7.04 or later (verify exact version from HP Security Bulletin c03839865)
- 1. Visit HP Support Center at h20564.www2.hp.com to locate Security Bulletin c03839865 for this vulnerability
- 2. Download the latest HP Storage Data Protector version available (7.04 or later)
- 3. Review the HP Security Bulletin for any specific patch requirements or prerequisites
- 4. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment before deploying
- 5. Apply the upgrade to production systems following standard change management procedures
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2325 — 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-2013-2325 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