CVE-2013-3320
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 · uneditedCross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in NetApp OnCommand System Manager before 2.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the 'full-name' and 'comment' fields.
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 confidenceStored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in NetApp OnCommand System Manager versions prior to 2.2. The application fails to properly sanitize user-supplied input in the 'full-name' and 'comment' fields, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript or HTML that executes in the browsers of other users who view this data.
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< 2.2CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm OnCommand System Manager installationCheck if OnCommand System Manager is installed on the system by reviewing installed software, looking for the application directory, or checking for the service/process.Affected if OnCommand System Manager is present on the system and the version cannot be determined or is less than 2.2
-
Identify the installed versionLocate the OnCommand System Manager version information. This is typically found in the application itself via Help > About, in the Windows Add/Remove Programs list, or in the installation directory's version metadata.Affected if The installed version is any version prior to 2.2 (for example, 2.0, 2.1, or earlier)
-
Determine if the application is accessibleVerify whether the OnCommand System Manager web interface or client is accessible to users. This may involve checking if the service is running and listening on expected ports, or if the application is launched by users.Affected if The application is running and users can log in to access its interface
-
Verify user access to profile fieldsCheck if users have the ability to access and modify their profile settings, specifically the 'full-name' and 'comment' fields within the application.Affected if Users have access to modify the 'full-name' or 'comment' fields in the application
The environment is affected if NetApp OnCommand System Manager version 2.2 or later is NOT installed AND the application is accessible to users who can access the 'full-name' and 'comment' profile fields.
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 data2.2
Upgrade to OnCommand System Manager version 2.2 or later which contains the patch. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement input validation and output encoding as compensating controls.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3320 — 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-2013-3320 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