CVE-2013-6026
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 web interface on D-Link DIR-100, DIR-120, DI-624S, DI-524UP, DI-604S, DI-604UP, DI-604+, and TM-G5240 routers; Planex BRL-04R, BRL-04UR, and BRL-04CW routers; and Alpha Networks routers allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and modify settings via an xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide User-Agent HTTP header, as exploited in the wild in October 2013.
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 confidenceA backdoor authentication bypass exists in the web interface of multiple D-Link, Planex, and Alpha Networks router models. Remote attackers can bypass authentication by sending a specially crafted HTTP request with the User-Agent header value 'xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide', allowing unauthorized modification of router settings.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 router model and firmware versionLog into the router admin interface and check the status or system info page, or look for a model number sticker on the device itself. Check the main administration page for firmware version information.Affected if The device model matches any of these: Di-524up, DI-604+, DI-604s, DI-604up, DIR-100, DIR-120, TM-G5240, or DIR-624s (and version is all versions as listed).
-
Determine if router web interface is remotely accessibleFrom an external network (or using a mobile hotspot), attempt to access the router's public IP address on port 80 or 443 using a web browser. Also check the router's WAN/Internet facing settings page to see if remote management is enabled.Affected if The router web interface is reachable from the Internet WAN side, indicating remote management is enabled.
-
Test for backdoor authentication bypassSend an HTTP request to the router's web interface (either local IP if testing locally, or public IP if remotely accessible) with a custom User-Agent header set to exactly: xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide. This can be done using browser developer tools, curl -A 'xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide' http://router_ip, or a web vulnerability scanner.Affected if The request bypasses authentication and returns router administration pages or allows configuration changes without valid credentials.
-
Verify authentication is not required with the backdoor headerCompare the response when sending a request with the special User-Agent versus a normal browser User-Agent. Check if the special header grants access to protected pages like /admin.asp or allows changing settings without login.Affected if Using the special User-Agent grants full administrative access while a normal User-Agent prompts for login or denies access.
A user is affected if they have any of the listed D-Link router models and the web interface is accessible (especially remotely) without requiring valid credentials when the specific User-Agent header is used.
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.
dbcve · scopedReplace affected routers with updated models, or if firmware updates are available from vendors, apply them immediately. As a compensating control, disable remote web management and place affected devices behind a firewall.
- Identify all affected D-Link routers in the environment (DIR-100, DIR-120, DI-624S, DI-524UP, DI-604S, DI-604UP, DI-604+, TM-G5240) and similar Planex/Alpha devices.
- Take affected devices out of service as they are end-of-life with no security patches available.
- Replace with newer routers from a vendor that provides regular security updates.
- If immediate replacement is not possible, place affected devices behind a firewall and restrict access to the web management interface to only trusted IPs.
- Disable remote web management (HTTP/HTTPS) on affected devices if not absolutely required.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6026 — 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-2013-6026 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