CVE-2013-3650
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 the lfCheckFileName function in data/class/pages/LC_Page_ResizeImage.php in LOCKON EC-CUBE before 2.12.5 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary image files via vectors involving the image parameter to resize_image.php, a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-3654.
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 the lfCheckFileName function within LC_Page_ResizeImage.php allows remote attackers to read arbitrary image files via the image parameter in resize_image.php. The vulnerability stems from insufficient input validation, allowing path traversal sequences (such as ../) to access files outside the intended 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<= 2.12.4= 2.12.0= 2.12.1= 2.12.2= 2.12.3CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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 EC-CUBE versionLocate the version file or configuration file in your EC-CUBE installation (typically in data/config/config.php or similar), and read the defined version constant. Alternatively, check the HTML/html file at the root of your EC-CUBE installation.Affected if The installed version is 2.12.0, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, or any version 2.12.4 or lower.
-
Locate vulnerable scriptCheck for the presence of resize_image.php in the web-accessible directory (typically in the /html/ folder) and LC_Page_ResizeImage.php in the data/class/pages/ directory.Affected if Both resize_image.php and LC_Page_ResizeImage.php exist in your installation.
-
Verify parameter exposureConfirm that the image parameter can be passed to resize_image.php via HTTP GET or POST request (e.g., access resize_image.php?image=test.jpg).Affected if The resize_image.php script accepts an 'image' parameter without requiring authentication.
-
Check input validation in lfCheckFileNameInspect the lfCheckFileName function within the LC_Page_ResizeImage.php file. Search for path traversal sequences (../) handling and input sanitization logic. Look for whether the function properly validates or blocks directory traversal attempts.Affected if The lfCheckFileName function lacks proper input validation to filter out '../' sequences from the image parameter.
If your EC-CUBE version is 2.12.4 or lower (specifically 2.12.0 through 2.12.3) AND the resize_image.php with the vulnerable lfCheckFileName function is exposed, your environment is affected by this directory traversal vulnerability.
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 EC-CUBE to version 2.12.5 or later. Alternatively, implement strict input validation in the lfCheckFileName function to sanitize the image parameter and prevent directory traversal sequences.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3650 — 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-2013-3650 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