CVE-2013-6202
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 HP Service Manager 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that (1) insert XSS sequences or (2) execute arbitrary code.
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 confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in HP Service Manager versions 9.30-9.33 allow remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions to inject XSS payloads or execute arbitrary code via crafted forged requests.
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= 9.30= 9.31= 9.32= 9.33CVSS 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 HP Service Manager is installedCheck for the application by looking at running processes, installed software, or accessing the web interface on common ports (typically 8080, 8443, or 13080). Check installation directories such as C:\HP\Service Manager or /opt/hp/sm.Affected if HP Service Manager is found running on the system
-
Determine the installed version numberAccess the HP Service Manager web interface and look for a version indicator, typically found in the login page footer, help/about section, or by accessing /sm/verison.jsp. Alternatively, check log files in the logs directory for version strings.Affected if The version cannot be determined or the application is not accessible
-
Compare your version against affected rangeVerify if the installed version matches exactly 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33 by reviewing the version information obtained in the previous step.Affected if The installed version is 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33 exactly
-
Confirm the application uses authenticationCheck if the Service Manager application has user authentication enabled by attempting to access the interface without credentials or by reviewing authentication configuration in the sm.ini or related config files.Affected if User authentication is enabled and sessions can be established (required for session hijacking via CSRF)
-
Check for anti-CSRF protection on state-changing formsInspect the HTML source of forms that perform state-changing actions (such as user profile updates, configuration changes, or data submissions) to verify if anti-CSRF tokens or unique request identifiers are present in the form fields.Affected if No anti-CSRF tokens are present on state-changing forms and the application is accessible to users
You are affected if HP Service Manager version 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33 is running with user authentication enabled and state-changing forms lack anti-CSRF token protection.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing forms and validate Origin/Referer headers; apply vendor patches if available.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,136.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6202 — 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-2013-6202 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