CVE-2013-4786
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 IPMI 2.0 specification supports RMCP+ Authenticated Key-Exchange Protocol (RAKP) authentication, which allows remote attackers to obtain password hashes and conduct offline password guessing attacks by obtaining the HMAC from a RAKP message 2 response from a BMC.
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 IPMI 2.0 specification's RAKP (RMCP+ Authenticated Key-Exchange Protocol) authentication contains a design flaw where the BMC (Baseboard Management Controller) returns password hash information (HMAC) in RAKP message 2 response. This allows remote attackers to capture these hashes and conduct offline password-guessing attacks.
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<= 2290= 2.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Verify IPMI over LAN (RMCP+) is enabledRun 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> channel info 1' or check BMC web interface for 'IPMI over LAN' or 'RMCP+' setting enabledAffected if IPMI over LAN is enabled and accessible over network - the vulnerability requires this feature to be active
-
Confirm IPMI version is 2.0Run 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> mc info' and look for 'IPMI Version' field, or check BMC firmware detailsAffected if IPMI Version shows 2.0 - this is the affected version per CVE specification
-
Check Oracle Fujitsu M10 firmware versionFor Oracle Fujitsu M10 systems, run 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> mc info' and look for 'Firmware Revision' or access BMC web interface to view firmware versionAffected if Firmware revision is 2290 or lower - versions <= 2290 are affected per CVE
-
Verify BMC network accessibilityAttempt to reach the BMC IP on ports 623 (UDP) for IPMI/RMCP+ from an untrusted network, or run 'nmap -sU -p 623 <BMC_IP>'Affected if BMC is reachable over network on port 623 (UDP) from untrusted networks - remote attackers require network access to capture RAKP message 2 responses
Your environment is affected if IPMI over LAN (RMCP+) is enabled with IPMI version 2.0 and your Oracle Fujitsu M10 firmware is <= 2290, especially if the BMC is network-accessible from untrusted networks.
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 dataDisable IPMI/RMCP+ over LAN if not required, enforce strong unique passwords for BMC accounts, apply vendor firmware updates, and isolate BMC networks from untrusted networks.
- Consultation4.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4786 — 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-2013-4786 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