CVE-2013-3594
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 · uneditedThe SSH service on Dell PowerConnect 3348 1.2.1.3, 3524p 2.0.0.48, and 5324 2.0.1.4 switches allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reset) or possibly execute arbitrary code by sending many packets to TCP port 22.
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 confidenceThe SSH service implementation in Dell PowerConnect 3348, 3524p, and 5324 switches contains a vulnerability that can be exploited by sending multiple packets to TCP port 22. This can cause a denial of service (device reset) or potentially allow arbitrary code execution, indicating a likely memory corruption issue such as a buffer overflow in the SSH daemon.
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= 1.2.1.3= 2.0.0.48= 2.0.1.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 the switch modelLog into the switch CLI and run 'show version' or check the physical label to confirm the exact model is one of: Dell PowerConnect 3348, 3524p, or 5324Affected if The model is NOT one of these three specific models, the device is not affected by this CVE
-
Check the firmware versionRun 'show version' or 'show firmware' in the switch CLI and locate the firmware/OS version stringAffected if The version is exactly 1.2.1.3 (for 3348), 2.0.0.48 (for 3524p), or 2.0.1.4 (for 5324); versions outside these exact numbers are not affected by this specific CVE
-
Verify SSH service is enabledRun 'show ip ssh' or 'show ssh' to check if the SSH daemon is configured and running on the deviceAffected if SSH is disabled or not configured; the vulnerability requires the SSH service to be active since the exploit is triggered by sending packets to TCP port 22
-
Confirm TCP port 22 is accessibleAttempt to reach the device on port 22 from a remote host using 'telnet <device-ip> 22' or an SSH client connection testAffected if Port 22 is unreachable from your testing location; the device may still be vulnerable but not remotely exploitable if SSH is only accessible from management VLANs
You are affected only if you have a Dell PowerConnect 3348, 3524p, or 5324 running the exact firmware version 1.2.1.3, 2.0.0.48, or 2.0.1.4 respectively, AND SSH is enabled and reachable on TCP port 22.
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 dataRestrict SSH access to trusted source IP addresses via ACLs on the switch or upstream firewall; contact Dell for firmware updates as these are legacy switches; disable SSH if not operationally required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3594 — 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-2013-3594 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