CVE-2013-6477
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 integer signedness errors in libpurple in Pidgin before 2.10.8 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted timestamp value in an XMPP message.
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 confidenceMultiple integer signedness errors in libpurple (Pidgin's core library) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service via application crash by sending crafted timestamp values in XMPP messages.
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<= 2.10.7= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.1.0= 2.1.1= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 2.3.0= 2.3.1= 2.4.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify Pidgin is installedCheck if the Pidgin client is present on the system. On Linux, run 'which pidgin' or check package lists via 'dpkg -l | grep pidgin' or 'rpm -qa | grep pidgin'. On Windows, look for Pidgin in Program Files or check Add/Remove Programs.Affected if Pidgin is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed Pidgin versionRun 'pidgin --version' or 'pidgin -V' from command line. On Windows, right-click pidgin.exe, select Properties, and check the Version tab. On Linux, also try 'dpkg -l pidgin' or 'rpm -qi pidgin' to get version details.Affected if The version cannot be determined or is not returned
-
Check for XMPP accountsExamine Pidgin accounts for any configured XMPP/Jabber connections. On Linux, check ~/.purple/accounts.xml for accounts with protocol 'prpl-jabber' or 'xmpp'. On Windows, check %APPDATA%\.purple\accounts.xml.Affected if No XMPP accounts are configured in Pidgin (the vulnerability only affects XMPP timestamp processing)
-
Compare version to affected rangeCompare your installed Pidgin version against the affected list: versions 2.0.0 through 2.10.7 inclusive. Note that versions 2.5.0 through 2.10.6 are also affected as they fall in the <= 2.10.7 range.Affected if Installed version is 2.10.7 or lower, or matches any of these specific versions: 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.2.0, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.0, 2.3.1, 2.4.0
The environment is affected if Pidgin with an XMPP account is installed and the version is 2.10.7 or lower (including 2.0.0 through 2.4.0 and 2.5.0 through 2.10.6).
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 Pidgin to version 2.10.8 or later which contains the patched libpurple library to resolve the signedness errors in XMPP timestamp handling.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6477 — 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-2013-6477 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