CVE-2013-6418
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 · uneditedPyWBEM 0.7 and earlier uses a separate connection to validate X.509 certificates, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof a peer via an arbitrary 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 · moderate confidencePyWBEM 0.7 and earlier validates X.509 certificates on a separate connection rather than validating certificates on the actual communication channel being used for data transfer. This architectural flaw allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to present an arbitrary certificate and spoof the peer, as the validation occurs on a different connection than the one actually being used for communication.
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<= 0.7CVSS 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.
-
Identify PyWBEM installationRun 'pip show pywbem' or check your Python environment for the pywbem packageAffected if PyWBEM package is installed and version is 0.7 or earlier
-
Verify the installed version numberCompare the version shown in 'pip show pywbem' or 'pip list' against the affected range: versions 0.7 and earlierAffected if The installed version is 0.7 or any version number lower than 0.7
-
Check for HTTPS/WBEMSSL usage in code or configSearch Python files and configuration for calls to WBEMServer, WBEMConnection, or URL patterns starting with 'https://' that involve PyWBEMAffected if Code or configuration uses PyWBEM to connect to WBEM servers over HTTPS
-
Inspect SSL certificate validation configurationExamine connection objects for parameters like 'x509', 'cert_file', 'key_file', or 'verify' that configure X.509 certificate validationAffected if SSL certificate validation is configured on connections that may use the separate validation channel rather than the primary connection
You are affected if PyWBEM version 0.7 or earlier is installed and used for WBEM over HTTPS connections where certificate validation occurs on a separate connection from the data channel.
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 dataUpdate to a version of PyWBEM after 0.7 that performs certificate validation on the actual connection, or implement proper certificate validation on the primary connection used for WBEM communication.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6418 — 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-2013-6418 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