CVE-2013-4734
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 · unediteddasdec_mkuser on the Digital Alert Systems DASDEC EAS device before 2.0-2 and the Monroe Electronics R189 One-Net EAS device before 2.0-2 generates predictable passwords, which might make it easier for attackers to obtain non-administrative 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 · moderate confidenceThe dasdec_mkuser utility in Digital Alert Systems DASDEC and Monroe Electronics R189 One-Net EAS devices before version 2.0-2 generates predictable passwords for user accounts due to insufficient randomness in the password generation algorithm. This weakness allows remote or local attackers to potentially brute-force or deduce valid credentials and gain non-administrative access to the EAS system.
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<= 2.0-1= 2.0-0<= 2.0-1= 2.0-0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 device and firmware versionAccess the DASDEC or Monroe R189 One-Net EAS device management interface or system information page to determine the exact firmware version installedAffected if The firmware version is 2.0-0, 2.0-1, or any version earlier than 2.0-2
-
Locate the dasdec_mkuser utilityCheck the system for the presence of the dasdec_mkuser utility by examining the command path or system binaries related to user managementAffected if The dasdec_mkuser utility exists on the system, indicating the vulnerable software component is present
-
Review user account creation methodsExamine system logs, user management logs, or documentation to determine how user accounts were created on the deviceAffected if User accounts were created using the dasdec_mkuser utility or a similar user creation tool in the affected version range
-
Assess password predictabilityIf you have access to any user account configuration files or password policy settings, examine them for evidence of weak or predictable password generationAffected if User accounts were configured with passwords generated by the vulnerable utility and show patterns consistent with insufficient randomness
A system is affected if it is a DASDEC or Monroe R189 One-Net EAS device running firmware version 2.0-0, 2.0-1, or earlier, particularly if the dasdec_mkuser utility was used to create user accounts
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 DASDEC and One-Net EAS devices to firmware version 2.0-2 or later which implements secure password generation. Until upgrade is possible, implement network segmentation, restrict access to management interfaces, and monitor for unauthorized access attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4734 — 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-2013-4734 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