XendesktopApplication · Citrix

CVE-2013-6077

MEDIUM · 5.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2013-11-05
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
67/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Citrix XenDesktop 7.0, when upgraded from XenDesktop 5.x, does not properly enforce policy rule permissions, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended restrictions.

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 confidence

Citrix XenDesktop 7.0 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability where policy rule permissions are not properly enforced after an upgrade from XenDesktop 5.x. This authorization bypass allows remote attackers to circumvent intended security restrictions and access resources or functionality they should not have.

MitigationOrganizations that upgraded from XenDesktop 5.x to 7.0 should audit and re-apply all policy rules to ensure proper permission enforcement, and apply any available vendor patches for this specific issue.

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
XendesktopApplication
Affected:= 7.0

CVSS 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
None

AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify XenDesktop version
    Check the installed XenDesktop version through the Desktop Studio console or by examining the installation, typically found in Add/Remove Programs or the Desktop Studio About section
    Affected if The version is exactly 7.0 (other versions are not affected by this specific CVE)
  2. Determine upgrade history
    Review installation documentation, check with IT administration records, or examine the Desktop Delivery Controller configuration to determine if the current XenDesktop 7.0 installation was upgraded from a XenDesktop 5.x version
    Affected if The system was upgraded from XenDesktop 5.x to 7.0 - this vulnerability only affects upgraded environments, not fresh installations of 7.0
  3. Inspect policy rules in Desktop Studio
    Open Citrix Desktop Studio, navigate to Policies, and review all configured policy rules. Check for any policies that appear to have incorrect or overly permissive user/group assignments or that grant access beyond the intended scope
    Affected if Policy rules grant excessive permissions to users or groups that should not have them, or show mismatched permission configurations
  4. Verify policy permission enforcement
    In Desktop Studio Policy settings, verify that each policy rule correctly enforces the intended security restrictions. Look for discrepancies between the configured permissions and the expected restrictions, particularly for user access controls
    Affected if Policy permissions are not being enforced as configured, or unauthorized users can access restricted resources or functionality

A user is affected if they are running XenDesktop 7.0 that was upgraded from XenDesktop 5.x and policy rules show permission misconfigurations or unauthorized access is possible.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Organizations that upgraded from XenDesktop 5.x to 7.0 should audit and re-apply all policy rules to ensure proper permission enforcement, and apply any available vendor patches for this specific issue.

Fix this in Xendesktop Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,690
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,304.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6077 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-6077 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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