CVE-2013-6346
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the ZCC page in Novell ZENworks Configuration Management (ZCM) before 11.2.4 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims 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 · moderate confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the ZENworks Control Center (ZCC) page of Novell ZENworks Configuration Management (ZCM). CSRF attacks exploit authenticated sessions by tricking users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests, allowing remote attackers to perform unauthorized actions with the victim's privileges in versions prior to 11.2.4.
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<= 11.2.3= 10.2= 10.3= 10.3.1= 10.3.2= 10.3.3= 11= 11.2CVSS 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.
-
Confirm ZCM installation and locate ZCCCheck for Novell ZENworks services: on Windows, look for 'Novell ZENworks Configuration Management' services in Services.msc; on Linux, check for 'zenworks' processes or /opt/novell/zenworks directory.Affected if No ZCM installation found means not affected; if installed, proceed to version check.
-
Identify installed ZCM versionOn Windows, check registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Novell\ZCM\CurrentVersion or look in the ZCC login page footer. On Linux, run 'zman version' if available, or check /opt/novell/zenworks/share/conf/zenworks-version file.Affected if Version is 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, 11, 11.2, or any build <= 11.2.3 indicates vulnerable.
-
Verify ZCC web interface presenceAccess the ZENworks Control Center URL (typically https://server:port/zenworks) or check if port 443/8443 is listening and serving ZCC.Affected if ZCC is accessible and version is in affected range, the CSRF vulnerability is present.
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementationInspect HTML forms in ZCC for anti-CSRF tokens: view page source of any ZCC form and look for hidden input fields with names like 'csrfToken', 'csrf', 'token', or similar. Also check if requests include token parameters.Affected if No anti-CSRF tokens found in ZCC forms and version is in affected range confirms vulnerability to CSRF attacks.
If ZCM version is 10.2 through 11.2.3 and the ZCC web interface is accessible without anti-CSRF token protection, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 ZCM 11.2.4 or later which contains the security fix. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens on sensitive state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers as compensating controls until upgrade is completed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6346 — 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-2013-6346 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