CVE-2013-3323
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 · uneditedA Privilege Escalation Vulnerability exists in IBM Maximo Asset Management 7.5, 7.1, and 6.2, when WebSeal with Basic Authentication is used, due to a failure to invalidate the authentication session, which could let a malicious user obtain unauthorized access.
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 confidenceIBM Maximo Asset Management versions 7.5, 7.1, and 6.2 have a privilege escalation vulnerability when deployed with WebSeal and Basic Authentication. The application fails to properly invalidate authentication sessions, allowing a malicious user who has obtained valid credentials or session information to maintain unauthorized access beyond the intended session lifecycle.
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= 7.1= 7.2= 6.2= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 6.4= 6.5= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 6.3= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 6.3= 6.4= 7.1= 7.5= 6.2= 6.3= 7.1= 7.5CVSS 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.
-
Identify Maximo product versionLocate the installed IBM Maximo version through the system information module, about dialog, or version.txt file in the installation directoryAffected if version is 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, or 7.5
-
Confirm WebSeal deploymentCheck the deployment architecture documentation or inspect web server configuration files for WebSeal (IBM Security Access Manager reverse proxy) presenceAffected if WebSeal is used as a reverse proxy or gateway in front of Maximo
-
Verify Basic Authentication is enabledInspect the authentication configuration in the Maximo security settings or web.xml file to determine if Basic Authentication is the configured methodAffected if Basic Authentication is the primary authentication mechanism
-
Test session invalidation behaviorLog into Maximo, perform explicit logout, then attempt to reuse the previous session cookie or credential to access protected resourcesAffected if session remains valid after logout or after configured timeout period expires
-
Review session timeout configurationCheck the session timeout settings in the application server configuration (web.xml or wasconfig) and WebSeal session settingsAffected if session timeout is set to an unusually long duration or is not enforced
User is affected if running any of the listed Maximo versions (6.2-7.5) with WebSeal and Basic Authentication, and sessions remain valid after logout or beyond intended timeout
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 · scopedImplement proper session invalidation logic in the authentication flow, or configure WebSeal to enforce session timeout and proper logout mechanisms to terminate sessions when Basic Authentication credentials are used.
IBM Maximo Asset Management 7.6.x or later (contact IBM Support for exact fixed version)
- Identify the current IBM Maximo Asset Management version in use by checking the version information in Maximo or the installation directory
- Contact IBM Support or visit the official IBM Support portal to obtain the specific security patch for CVE-2013-3323
- If a specific patch is not available, upgrade to a newer Maximo Asset Management version (such as 7.6.x or later) that includes the security fix
- After applying the patch or upgrade, verify that WebSeal session invalidation is functioning correctly
- Test the authentication flow with WebSeal and Basic Authentication to confirm the session is properly terminated after logout
- Review IBM's security bulletin for any additional configuration recommendations
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3323 — 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-2013-3323 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