CVE-2013-4111
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 Python client library for Glance (python-glanceclient) before 0.10.0 does not properly check the preverify_ok value, which prevents the server hostname from being verified with a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate and allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.
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 python-glanceclient library before version 0.10.0 fails to properly check the preverify_ok value during SSL/TLS verification, which disables hostname verification against the certificate's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName fields. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers using any valid certificate.
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= 0.9.0= 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Check installed python-glanceclient versionRun 'pip show python-glanceclient' or 'pip list | grep glance' to retrieve the installed version. On OpenSUSE 12.3, also run 'rpm -q python-glanceclient'Affected if Version is 0.9.0 or any version lower than 0.10.0
-
Verify SSL/TLS is being used for Glance connectionsInspect the glance client configuration files or environment variables used to connect to Glance services. Look for HTTPS endpoints or ssl=True settings in client initializationAffected if The client is configured to use SSL/TLS for connections to Glance API endpoints
-
Check for vulnerable SSL verification codeInspect the python-glanceclient source code in the ssl module. Look for code that reads the preverify_ok parameter from ssl.SSLError but does not perform hostname verification against certificate CN or subjectAltNameAffected if The installed version contains code that accepts preverify_ok without performing hostname validation
A user is affected if python-glanceclient version 0.9.0 (or any version before 0.10.0) is installed and SSL/TLS connections to Glance services are enabled.
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 python-glanceclient to version 0.10.0 or later which properly implements SSL certificate hostname verification. Alternatively, ensure only trusted networks are used to mitigate MITM risk until upgrade is possible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4111 — 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-2013-4111 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