CVE-2013-4053
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 WS-Security implementation in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 before 6.1.0.47, 7.0 before 7.0.0.31, 8.0 before 8.0.0.8, and 8.5 before 8.5.5.1, and WAS Feature Pack for Web Services 6.1 before 6.1.0.47, when a trust store is configured for XML Digital Signatures, does not properly verify X.509 certificates, which allows remote attackers to obtain privileged access via unspecified vectors.
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 WS-Security implementation in IBM WebSphere Application Server fails to properly validate X.509 certificates when a trust store is configured for XML Digital Signatures. This allows remote attackers to bypass certificate verification and potentially gain privileged access by presenting malicious or forged certificates.
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= 8.5.0.0= 8.5.0.1= 8.5.0.2= 8.5.5.0= 7.0= 7.0.0.1= 7.0.0.2= 7.0.0.3= 7.0.0.4= 7.0.0.5= 7.0.0.6= 7.0.0.7= 6.1.0.11= 6.1.0.13= 6.1.0.15= 6.1.0.17= 6.1.0.19= 6.1.0.21= 6.1.0.23= 6.1.0.25= 6.1.0.27= 6.1.0.29= 6.1.0.31= 6.1.0.33CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 WebSphere Application Server versionRun the versionInfo command from the bin directory (versionInfo.sh or versionInfo.bat) or check the install directory for version files. Also check the administrative console under Servers > Server Types > WebSphere application servers > [server name] for the version information.Affected if The installed version matches 7.0 through 7.0.0.7, 8.5.0.0 through 8.5.5.0, or the Feature Pack for Web Services versions 6.1.0.11 through 6.1.0.33.
-
Determine if WS-Security is enabledCheck the administrative console under Services > WS-Security or review the ws-security.xml configuration file in the application or deployment descriptor directory.Affected if WS-Security is configured and active for the application server.
-
Verify if a trust store is configured for XML Digital SignaturesIn the administrative console, navigate to Security > SSL certificate and key management > Key stores and certificates, or examine the XML Digital Signature configuration within the WS-Security bindings. Look for a trust store entry specified for signature verification.Affected if A trust store is explicitly configured for XML Digital Signature validation in the WS-Security settings.
-
Confirm X.509 certificate validation settingsReview the WS-Security policy bindings for X.509 certificate validation configuration. Check whether certificate chain validation, revocation checking, or trust anchor validation is enabled or properly configured for the trust store in use.Affected if The X.509 certificate validation is configured to use the trust store but validation is not properly enforced (the vulnerability allows bypass).
The environment is affected if running a vulnerable version listed in the affected ranges AND WS-Security is enabled with a trust store configured for XML Digital Signature validation where certificate verification can be bypassed.
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 dataApply IBM WebSphere patches to the appropriate version level (6.1.0.47+, 7.0.0.31+, 8.0.0.8+, or 8.5.5.1+) and verify the trust store is properly configured for X.509 certificate validation in WS-Security settings.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4053 — 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-2013-4053 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