Flash ToolApplication · Milboj
CVE-2013-2513
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 · uneditedThe flash_tool gem through 0.6.0 for Ruby allows command execution via shell metacharacters in the name of a downloaded file.
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 confidenceThe flash_tool Ruby gem through version 0.6.0 is vulnerable to command injection because it passes unsanitized filenames from downloaded files to shell commands, allowing attackers to inject shell metacharacters and execute arbitrary commands.
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
Flash ToolApplication
<= 0.6.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 if flash_tool gem is installedRun 'gem list flash_tool' or 'gem list | grep flash_tool' to see if the gem is present on the systemAffected if The flash_tool gem is installed and its version is 0.6.0 or lower
-
Determine the exact version of flash_toolRun 'gem specification flash_tool' or check your Gemfile.lock for the flash_tool version entryAffected if The installed version is 0.6.0 or any version below 0.6.0
-
Identify if the application processes downloaded files with flash_toolSearch your codebase for calls to flash_tool methods that handle file downloads or file paths, such as 'flash_tool' gem methods that accept file names as argumentsAffected if Your code passes downloaded filenames directly to flash_tool methods without sanitization
-
Inspect file handling code for shell command executionReview code that uses flash_tool to see if filenames are passed to system(), exec(), or backtick commands without proper escapingAffected if Filenames from external sources are being passed to shell commands through flash_tool functionality
-
Check for unsanitized user input in file processingAudit any code paths where user-supplied or downloaded filenames are used as parameters to flash_tool gem methodsAffected if Unsantized input flows from file downloads directly into shell command execution
You are affected if the flash_tool gem version 0.6.0 or lower is installed AND your application passes downloaded filenames to flash_tool methods that execute shell commands without sanitization.
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 dataSanitize filenames before using them in shell commands, or upgrade to a patched version of flash_tool if available. Avoid passing untrusted input directly to system calls.
Fix this in Flash Tool
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2513 — 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-2013-2513 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