CVE-2013-5143
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 RADIUS service in Server App in Apple OS X Server before 3.0 selects a fallback X.509 certificate in unspecified circumstances, which might allow man-in-the-middle attackers to hijack RADIUS sessions by leveraging knowledge of the private key that matches this fallback 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 · moderate confidenceThe RADIUS service in Apple OS X Server App before version 3.0 has a certificate selection flaw where it uses a fallback X.509 certificate in certain unspecified conditions. An attacker with knowledge of the private key matching this fallback certificate can perform man-in-the-middle attacks to hijack RADIUS authentication sessions.
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<= 2.2.2= 2.0= 2.1= 2.1.1= 2.2= 2.2.1CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Apple OS X Server versionRun 'sw_vers' or check the Server app bundle info (Server.app Contents/Info.plist CFBundleShortVersionString) to determine the installed versionAffected if Version is 2.0, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, or any version 2.2.2 and below
-
Verify RADIUS service is configuredOpen Server app, go to RADIUS service settings, or check /Library/Server/Radius/ configuration directory for active RADIUS configurationAffected if RADIUS service is enabled and has a server profile configured
-
Inspect RADIUS certificate configurationIn Server app RADIUS settings, examine the certificate configuration panel for any configured certificates. Look for entries marked as fallback, default, or secondary certificatesAffected if A fallback or secondary X.509 certificate is configured alongside a primary certificate
-
Check for certificates with known private keysReview RADIUS certificate configuration for any certificates that may have been distributed, shared, or used in testing environments where the private key may not be exclusively controlledAffected if Any RADIUS certificate configuration exists on a vulnerable server version where the private key may be compromised or known to third parties
You are affected if running Apple OS X Server version 2.2.2 or below AND the RADIUS service is configured with a fallback certificate that could be exploited by an attacker with the matching private key.
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 Apple OS X Server to version 3.0 or later. Review and properly configure RADIUS certificates, ensuring no unintended fallback certificates with known private keys are present.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-5143 — 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-2013-5143 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