CVE-2013-3613
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 · uneditedDahua DVR appliances do not properly restrict UPnP requests, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via vectors involving a replay attack against the TELNET port.
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 confidenceDahua DVR appliances fail to properly restrict UPnP requests, allowing remote attackers to leverage replay attack vectors against the TELNET service. This enables unauthenticated remote attackers to gain administrative access to the device.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:N/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 the DVR model numberCheck the device label, web interface, or system information to confirm the exact model (e.g., Dvr0404hd A, Dvr0404hf S E, etc.) matches one of the eight affected models: Dvr0404hd A, Dvr0404hd L, Dvr0404hd S, Dvr0404hd U, Dvr0404hf A E, Dvr0404hf Al E, Dvr0404hf S E, or Dvr0404hf U EAffected if The device model is any of the eight listed models
-
Verify if UPnP is enabledAccess the DVR web interface (typically via browser to the device IP) and navigate to Network or Port Forwarding settings to check if Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) is turned onAffected if UPnP is enabled on the device (the vulnerability requires UPnP to be improperly restricted)
-
Confirm TELNET service accessibilityAttempt to connect to the device on TCP port 23 (telnet) from an internal host, or review port forwarding rules to see if TELNET is exposed externallyAffected if TELNET service is reachable (the replay attack targets the TELNET service)
A user is affected if they own one of the eight listed DVR models, UPnP is enabled, and TELNET service is accessible 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 dataDisable UPnP on affected DVR appliances, block external TELNET access at the network perimeter, and consider disabling TELNET in favor of SSH or replacing vulnerable devices.
- 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-2013-3613 — 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-2013-3613 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