CVE-2013-6028
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Atmail Webmail Server before 7.2 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add user accounts, (2) modify user accounts, (3) delete user accounts, or (4) stop the product's service.
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 confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in Atmail Webmail Server admin interface before version 7.2 allow remote attackers to hijack administrator authentication for requests that add, modify, or delete user accounts, or stop the service. The flaw stems from missing or inadequate anti-CSRF protections in administrative forms.
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<= 7.1.6= 6.3.0= 6.3.1= 6.3.2= 6.3.3= 6.3.4= 6.3.5= 6.3.6= 6.4.0= 6.4.1= 6.4.2= 6.5.0CVSS 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
- 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 Atmail versionLocate the installed Atmail version by checking the software documentation, admin panel, or version file typically found in the installation directory. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: <= 7.1.6 or any of 6.3.0, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5, 6.3.6, 6.4.0, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.5.0.Affected if The installed version matches one of the listed affected versions.
-
Locate admin interfaceIdentify the URL path for the Atmail admin interface (commonly /admin or /atmailadmin). Confirm the interface is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The admin interface is reachable and the version is affected.
-
Inspect admin forms for CSRF tokensAccess the admin login page and logged-in admin pages that perform state-changing actions (add user, delete user, modify settings, stop service). View the HTML source of these forms and search for anti-CSRF token fields such as tokens, hidden input fields with random-looking values, or similar security tokens.Affected if The admin forms lack anti-CSRF token fields or the tokens are not validated server-side.
-
Verify token validation behaviorSubmit a state-changing admin request (such as adding a test user) without the expected CSRF token or with an invalid token. Observe whether the action is rejected or processed.Affected if State-changing requests succeed without valid CSRF tokens, confirming the vulnerability.
A user is affected if the Atmail version is 7.1.6 or lower, or one of the specific 6.x versions listed, and the admin interface forms lack or fail to validate anti-CSRF tokens.
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 to Atmail Webmail Server 7.2 or later which contains the security fix; implement anti-CSRF tokens on all admin-facing forms and validate tokens server-side for any state-changing requests.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6028 — 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-2013-6028 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