CVE-2013-5352
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 · uneditedSharetronix 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1, and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the (1) activities_text parameter to services/activities/set or (2) comments_text parameter to services/comments/set, which is not properly handled when executing the preg_replace function with the e modifier.
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 confidenceSharetronix versions 3.1.1.3 and earlier contain a code injection vulnerability in the activities_text and comments_text parameters of API endpoints services/activities/set and services/comments/set. The vulnerability stems from unsafe use of the preg_replace function with the /e modifier, which evaluates the replacement string as executable PHP code, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary PHP code on the server.
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<= 3.1.1= 3.1.1.3CVSS 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 if Sharetronix is installedCheck for Sharetronix installation by looking for its typical directory structure or by accessing the application's login or index page to confirm the product name.Affected if The application is not Sharetronix, then this CVE does not apply.
-
Determine the installed Sharetronix versionLocate the version file or footer within the Sharetronix installation and compare the version number to the affected ranges (versions 3.1.1.3 and earlier, or version 3.1.1).Affected if The installed version is 3.1.1.3 or any earlier version (including 3.1.1), indicating the system is potentially affected.
-
Verify the API endpoints existCheck if the API endpoints services/activities/set and services/comments/set are present in the Sharetronix installation, typically under an api or services directory.Affected if The vulnerable API endpoints exist and are accessible on the server.
-
Inspect the source code for the vulnerable preg_replace patternLocate the source code files handling the activities_text and comments_text parameters (in the activities and comments processing modules) and search for preg_replace calls using the /e modifier that process these user-supplied parameters.Affected if The code contains preg_replace with the /e modifier processing the activities_text or comments_text parameters without proper sanitization, confirming the vulnerability is present.
A user is affected if they have Sharetronix version 3.1.1.3 or earlier installed with the API endpoints accessible and the vulnerable preg_replace /e pattern present in the code.
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 dataReplace preg_replace /e modifier calls with preg_replace_callback or other safe alternatives to prevent code injection; validate and sanitize all user input before use in dynamic code execution contexts.
- 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-2013-5352 — 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-2013-5352 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