CVE-2013-3598
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in servlet/CreateTemplateServlet in SearchBlox before 7.5 build 1 allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the name parameter.
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 confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in SearchBlox's CreateTemplateServlet allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files on the server by using '..' sequences in the name parameter, enabling unauthorized file modification outside the intended template directory.
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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
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 installationLocate SearchBlox by accessing the application on its typical ports (default 8080) or checking for SearchBlox web application files in the application server directory.Affected if SearchBlox web application is found running on the server
-
Determine installed SearchBlox versionAccess the SearchBlox admin interface or check version files within the SearchBlox installation directory to obtain the exact version number.Affected if The version is 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, or any version <= 7.5
-
Verify CreateTemplateServlet is accessibleAttempt to access the CreateTemplateServlet endpoint (typically at /searchblox/CreateTemplateServlet or /CreateTemplateServlet) via HTTP request.Affected if The servlet responds and accepts parameters without authentication restrictions
-
Test for path traversal vulnerabilitySend an HTTP request to the CreateTemplateServlet with a name parameter containing '..' sequences (e.g., name=../../test.txt) and observe if the application processes the path traversal.Affected if The application accepts and processes path traversal sequences in the name parameter, allowing access outside the intended template directory
A system is affected if SearchBlox versions 6.2 through 7.5 (or <= 7.5) are installed and the CreateTemplateServlet is accessible, enabling path traversal via the name parameter.
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 version 7.5 build 1 or later, or implement strict input validation on the name parameter to reject path traversal sequences such as '..'
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3598 — 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-2013-3598 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