CVE-2013-3590
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 · uneditedUnrestricted file upload vulnerability in admin/uploadImage.html in SearchBlox before 7.5 build 1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by uploading an executable file with the image/jpeg content type, and then accessing this file via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by access to a JSP 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 confidenceUnrestricted file upload vulnerability in SearchBlox admin/uploadImage.html allows remote attackers to upload executable files (like JSP) by伪装ing them with an image/jpeg content-type header, then execute arbitrary code by directly accessing the uploaded files.
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<= 7.5= 6.2= 6.3= 6.4= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 SearchBlox installation and versionLocate the SearchBlox installation (commonly in /searchblox, /opt/searchblox, or C:\Program Files\SearchBlox). Check for a version file or examine the admin interface login page which typically displays the version number.Affected if The installed version matches 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, or any version 7.5 or lower.
-
Verify admin interface is network accessibleAttempt to access the admin login page at /admin/ or the vulnerable endpoint at /admin/uploadImage.html from an untrusted network perspective. Check if authentication is required or if the interface is exposed without proper access controls.Affected if The admin interface or uploadImage.html endpoint is accessible without valid authentication or from untrusted networks.
-
Confirm uploaded files are web-accessibleAfter locating the upload functionality, attempt a test upload of a benign file and verify if it is stored in a web-accessible directory (typically under /uploads/, /admin/uploads/, or the web root). Check if uploaded files can be directly accessed via URL.Affected if Uploaded files are stored in a web-accessible directory and can be directly requested via HTTP, allowing potential execution of uploaded executables.
You are affected if your SearchBlox version is 6.2 through 7.5 (inclusive) AND the admin/uploadImage.html endpoint is accessible without proper authorization AND uploaded files can be served via the web server, allowing remote code execution.
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 to SearchBlox 7.5 build 1 or later which implements proper file type validation beyond content-type headers, or restrict access to the admin interface via network segmentation/authentication if upgrade is not feasible.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3590 — 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-2013-3590 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