CVE-2013-6396
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 · uneditedThe OpenStack Python client library for Swift (python-swiftclient) 1.0 through 1.9.0 does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
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 confidenceThe python-swiftclient library versions 1.0 through 1.9.0 fails to perform X.509 certificate verification when establishing SSL/TLS connections to Swift servers. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting fraudulent certificates, potentially exposing sensitive data transmitted between clients and the OpenStack Swift storage service.
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= 1.0.0= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.1.0= 1.2.0= 1.3.0= 1.4.0= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.3= 1.4.4= 1.4.5CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify python-swiftclient installationRun 'pip show python-swiftclient' or check your package manager for the installed python-swiftclient packageAffected if python-swiftclient is not installed or not found in your environment
-
Determine installed versionLocate the version number from the pip show output or package manager information. For pip, the version appears in the 'Version:' fieldAffected if The version displayed is 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.5.0 through 1.9.0, or any version in the range 1.0 to 1.9.0 inclusive
-
Inspect SSL connection behaviorExamine the code or configuration where python-swiftclient connects to Swift servers. Look for calls to the Client or Connection class and whether ssl or cert_verify parameters are explicitly set, and inspect the underlying HTTP client configuration if accessibleAffected if SSL/TLS certificate verification is not explicitly enforced or is disabled in the connection setup, and the python-swiftclient version falls within 1.0 to 1.9.0
You are affected if python-swiftclient version 1.0 through 1.9.0 is installed and used to connect to Swift servers over SSL/TLS without certificate verification enabled.
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 python-swiftclient to version 1.10.0 or later, which implements proper SSL certificate chain validation. If upgrading is not immediately possible, ensure connections are made only over trusted networks to reduce MITM exposure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6396 — 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-2013-6396 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