CVE-2013-3624
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 OS deployment feature in Baramundi Management Suite 7.5 through 8.9 stores credentials in cleartext on deployed machines, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading a file. NOTE: this ID was also incorrectly mapped to a separate issue in Oracle Outside In, but the correct ID for that issue is CVE-2013-5763.
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 confidenceThe OS deployment feature in Baramundi Management Suite versions 7.5 through 8.9 stores user credentials in cleartext (unencrypted) directly in files on deployed machines. An attacker with local or remote file system access can read these files to harvest plaintext credentials used during OS deployment.
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= 7.6= 8.0= 8.1= 8.2= 8.3= 8.5= 8.6= 8.7= 8.8= 8.9CVSS 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 Baramundi Management Suite versionCheck the installed Baramundi Management Suite version via Windows Add/Remove Programs or the installation directory. Compare against affected versions 7.5 through 8.9.Affected if Version is 7.5, 7.6, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, or 8.9
-
Confirm OS deployment feature usageCheck whether the OS deployment feature was used on the system. Look for OS deployment job configurations, task sequences, deployment logs, or related files in the Baramundi installation directory or on deployed machines.Affected if OS deployment feature was used
-
Locate OS deployment configuration filesSearch the Baramundi installation directory and deployed machine images for OS deployment-related configuration files, scripts, or XML files that may store credentials.Affected if Credential-containing configuration files exist in OS deployment directories
-
Inspect for cleartext credentialsOpen and examine any identified OS deployment configuration files for plaintext passwords, username entries, or other authentication data stored without encryption.Affected if Plaintext credentials are found in OS deployment files
User is affected if Baramundi Management Suite version 7.5-8.9 is installed and the OS deployment feature was used, with credential files containing cleartext passwords present on the system.
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 dataReplace cleartext credential storage with encrypted storage using Windows Credential Manager, DPAPI, or equivalent secure credential storage mechanisms. Ensure deployed files have restricted permissions to limit unauthorized access.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3624 — 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-2013-3624 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