CVE-2013-6049
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 · uneditedapt-listbugs before 0.1.10 creates temporary files insecurely, which allows attackers to have unspecified impact via unknown vectors.
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 confidenceapt-listbugs before version 0.1.10 creates temporary files insecurely, likely using predictable file paths or names in a world-writable directory. This enables symlink attacks or race conditions allowing attackers to overwrite or manipulate files with the privileges of the user running apt-listbugs.
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= 7.0= 8.0all 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 apt-listbugs package is installedRun 'dpkg -l apt-listbugs' or 'apt-cache policy apt-listbugs' to see if the package is installedAffected if The package is not installed in the system, they are not affected; if installed, proceed to next check
-
Retrieve installed version numberRun 'dpkg -s apt-listbugs 2>/dev/null | grep Version' or 'apt-cache policy apt-listbugs' to display the installed versionAffected if No version is returned because the package is not installed - not affected. If version is returned, proceed to compare against affected range.
-
Compare version against vulnerable rangeCompare the installed version to the affected range: all versions before 0.1.10 on Debian 7.0 and 8.0, and all versions of apt-listbugs Project apt-listbugsAffected if If the installed version is lower than 0.1.10 (for example 0.1.8, 0.1.9, or any 0.1.x prior to 0.1.10), the system is vulnerable to insecure temporary file creation as described in the CVE
The system is affected if apt-listbugs is installed and its version is below 0.1.10, as all prior versions create temporary files with predictable paths in a world-writable directory.
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 apt-listbugs to version 0.1.10 or later to obtain the secure temporary file implementation.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6049 — 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-2013-6049 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