CVE-2013-3349
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 Adobe ColdFusion 9.0 through 9.0.2, when the JRun application server is used, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unknown vectors.
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 confidenceDenial of service vulnerability in Adobe ColdFusion 9.0 through 9.0.2 when the JRun application server is used. Remote attackers can cause unspecified DoS conditions via unknown vectors, likely impacting service availability.
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= 9.0= 9.0.1= 9.0.2CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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 ColdFusion versionLocate the ColdFusion installation and determine the exact version number, typically found in the ColdFusion administrator interface, version.ini file, or install directory documentationAffected if The installed version matches 9.0, 9.0.1, or 9.0.2 exactly
-
Confirm JRun application server is in useDetermine whether the JRun application server is the underlying server handling ColdFusion requests, as the vulnerability only affects ColdFusion when JRun is usedAffected if JRun is configured as the application server for this ColdFusion installation
-
Verify network exposureAssess whether the ColdFusion server is accessible over the network, as remote attackers can trigger the DoS condition via network vectorsAffected if The ColdFusion server is exposed to network or internet access without adequate filtering
The environment is affected if Adobe ColdFusion versions 9.0, 9.0.1, or 9.0.2 are installed and the JRun application server is in use, as the unknown attack vector can cause service unavailability.
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 dataApply Adobe security patches for ColdFusion 9.0.2 or upgrade to a supported ColdFusion version. If JRun is not required, consider migrating to another application server.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3349 — 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-2013-3349 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