CVE-2013-4325
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 check_permission_v1 function in base/pkit.py in HP Linux Imaging and Printing (HPLIP) through 3.13.9 does not properly use D-Bus for communication with a polkit authority, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions by leveraging a PolkitUnixProcess PolkitSubject race condition via a (1) setuid process or (2) pkexec process.
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 check_permission_v1 function in HPLIP's base/pkit.py does not properly use D-Bus for communication with the polkit authority, allowing local users to bypass access restrictions through a race condition in PolkitUnixProcess PolkitSubject when using setuid or pkexec processes.
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= 1.0= 2.0= 2.7.10= 3.9.2= 3.9.4= 3.9.4b= 3.9.6= 3.9.8= 3.9.10= 3.9.12= 3.10.2= 3.10.5CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Verify HPLIP is installedRun command: which hp-info or dpkg -l | grep hplip or rpm -qa | grep hplipAffected if HPLIP is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed HPLIP versionRun command: hp-info --version or check /usr/share/hplip/base/pkit.py if it exists, or use dpkg -l | grep hplipAffected if Version matches any of: 1.0, 2.0, 2.7.10, 3.9.2, 3.9.4, 3.9.4b, 3.9.6, 3.9.8, 3.9.10, 3.9.12, 3.10.2, 3.10.5
-
Check if vulnerable file base/pkit.py existsRun command: ls -la /usr/share/hplip/base/pkit.py or locate pkit.py in HPLIP installation directoryAffected if The file exists and contains the check_permission_v1 function
-
Confirm polkit/D-Bus authorization is in use with HPLIPCheck if HPLIP tools invoke polkit authorization (look for pkexec usage or polkit authentication prompts when running hp-* commands as non-root)Affected if Polkit authorization is being used by HPLIP utilities
User is affected if HPLIP is installed with a version matching 1.0, 2.0, 2.7.10, 3.9.x, 3.10.x, or 3.10.5 and the system relies on polkit for HPLIP authorization.
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 HPLIP to a version beyond 3.13.9 that properly implements D-Bus communication with polkit. If upgrade is not possible, restrict access to the HPLIP components and ensure only trusted users have access to printing functions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4325 — 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-2013-4325 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