CVE-2013-3595
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 OpenManage web application 2.5 build 1.19 on Dell PowerConnect 3348 1.2.1.3, 3524p 2.0.0.48, and 5324 2.0.1.4 switches allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (device reset) via a direct request to an unspecified OSPF URL.
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 OpenManage web application version 2.5 build 1.19 on Dell PowerConnect 3348, 3524p, and 5324 switches contains a vulnerability where authenticated remote users can cause denial of service by sending direct requests to an unspecified OSPF URL, resulting in device reset.
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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/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 PowerConnect switch modelLog into the switch CLI or check the physical device label to determine if the model is PowerConnect 3348, 3524p, or 5324Affected if The model is NOT one of these three, the device is not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check the installed firmware versionUse the command 'show version' in the switch CLI to retrieve the current firmware versionAffected if The version matches exactly 1.2.1.3 for 3348, 2.0.0.48 for 3524p, or 2.0.1.4 for 5324, indicating the device is running an affected version
-
Verify OpenManage web application is enabledCheck the switch configuration for web management interface status using 'show running-config' or 'show management' commandAffected if The OpenManage HTTP/HTTPS web interface is enabled and accessible, which is required for the exploit to be triggered
-
Confirm OSPF routing is configuredUse 'show ip ospf' or 'show running-config | include ospf' to check if OSPF is enabled on the deviceAffected if OSPF is actively configured on the switch, as the denial of service is triggered via OSPF-specific requests
The device is affected if it is 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 the OpenManage web interface is accessible AND OSPF is enabled on the device.
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 management access to the OpenManage web application to trusted administrators only. If a vendor patch is available, upgrade the firmware. Consider network segmentation to limit OSPF management interface exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3595 — 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-2013-3595 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