dbcve.org
FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject

CVE-2013-4409

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-11-04
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.7.15 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An eval() vulnerability exists in Python Software Foundation Djblets 0.7.21 and Beanbag Review Board before 1.7.15 when parsing JSON requests.

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 confidence

The vulnerability stems from the use of Python's eval() function to parse JSON requests in Djblets 0.7.21 and Review Board before 1.7.15. Since eval() executes arbitrary Python code, an attacker can craft malicious JSON payloads to achieve remote code execution on the server. This is a critical injection vulnerability exploitable over the network without authentication.

MitigationUpgrade to Djblets 0.7.21 or later and Review Board 1.7.15 or later, which replace the unsafe eval() usage with proper JSON parsing (e.g., json.loads()). Alternatively, immediately replace all eval() calls in JSON request handling with json module functions.

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
FedoraOperating system
Affected:= 18= 19= 20
Enterprise LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 6.0
DjbletsApplication
Affected:= 0.7.21
Review BoardApplication
Affected:< 1.7.15

CVSS 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
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check installed Djblets version
    Run 'pip show djblets' or check the installed package version via your package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q djblets' on RHEL/Fedora)
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.7.21 (this specific version contains the vulnerable eval() call)
  2. Check installed Review Board version
    Run 'pip show ReviewBoard' or check via package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q reviewboard')
    Affected if The installed version is 1.7.14 or earlier (versions prior to 1.7.15 are affected)
  3. Identify eval() usage in JSON request handling
    Search the codebase for eval() calls used to parse JSON data. Run: grep -r 'eval.*json' or grep -r 'eval.*request' in the Review Board and Djblets installation directories
    Affected if Code exists that uses eval() to process JSON from incoming requests (this is the vulnerable pattern)
  4. Confirm JSON API endpoint availability
    Check if Review Board's JSON API endpoints are accessible. Inspect the web server configuration and Review Board's url.py for API routes that accept JSON POST data
    Affected if JSON-handling endpoints are exposed and reachable over the network without authentication

You are affected if you run Djblets 0.7.21 or Review Board 1.7.14/earlier AND your installation contains the eval()-based JSON parsing code, with network-accessible JSON API endpoints.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 1.7.15 or later
Fixed in 1.7.15
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Djblets 0.7.21 or later and Review Board 1.7.15 or later, which replace the unsafe eval() usage with proper JSON parsing (e.g., json.loads()). Alternatively, immediately replace all eval() calls in JSON request handling with json module functions.

Recommended fix High confidence

Review Board 1.7.15 or later; Djblets 0.7.22 or later

  1. Identify the installed version of Review Board and Djblets in your environment
  2. Upgrade Review Board to version 1.7.15 or later
  3. Upgrade Djblets to version 0.7.22 or later (a version newer than 0.7.21)
  4. Restart any services or applications using Review Board or Djblets
  5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed versions

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Fedora Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,840
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4409 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-4409 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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