CVE-2013-2633
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 · uneditedPiwik before 1.11 accepts input from a POST request instead of a GET request in unspecified circumstances, which might allow attackers to obtain sensitive information by leveraging the logging of parameters.
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 confidencePiwik before version 1.11 has a data exposure vulnerability where certain input is accepted via POST requests instead of GET requests. Since POST request parameters may be logged while GET parameters typically are not, this could allow sensitive information in request parameters to be captured in server logs.
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<= 1.10.1= 1.0= 1.1= 1.1.1= 1.2= 1.2.1= 1.3= 1.4= 1.5= 1.5.1= 1.6= 1.7CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 Matomo/Piwik versionAccess the admin dashboard and navigate to the version information page, or check the version file in the installation directory if you have file system accessAffected if The installed version is 1.10.1 or lower, or matches any of these: 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.6, 1.7
-
Confirm POST-based parameter handling existsReview the application source code for forms or endpoints that accept sensitive input via POST method instead of GET, particularly in authentication or data submission modulesAffected if The application accepts sensitive parameters (such as username, password, token, or other credentials) through POST requests instead of GET requests
-
Examine server access logs for exposed sensitive dataSearch your web server access logs (Apache, Nginx, or other) for POST request entries that contain sensitive parameter names in the logged dataAffected if Server logs contain POST requests with sensitive parameters such as passwords, tokens, or authentication credentials visible in plain text
You are affected if your Matomo/Piwik installation is version 1.10.1 or below and server logs may have captured sensitive parameters from POST requests
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 Piwik to version 1.11 or later. Additionally, review server access logs for any suspicious entries containing sensitive parameters that may have been logged during the vulnerable period.
- 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-2013-2633 — 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-2013-2633 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