CVE-2013-6479
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 · uneditedutil.c in libpurple in Pidgin before 2.10.8 does not properly allocate memory for HTTP responses that are inconsistent with the Content-Length header, which allows remote HTTP servers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted response.
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 vulnerability exists in util.c within libpurple (used by Pidgin). When processing HTTP responses, the code fails to properly allocate memory when the actual response body size differs from what the Content-Length header specifies. This mismatch leads to incorrect memory allocation and subsequent application crash when handling crafted HTTP responses from malicious servers.
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.
-
Check if Pidgin is installedOn Linux: which pidgin or dpkg -l | grep pidgin. On Windows: Check Program Files for Pidgin folder or look in Add/Remove Programs.Affected if Pidgin is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed Pidgin versionRun 'pidgin --version' from command line, or on Windows right-click pidgin.exe and select Properties > Details > File Version.Affected if The version is 2.10.7 or lower, or any version from 2.0.0 to 2.4.0 inclusive
-
Check libpurple library versionOn Linux: locate libpurple.so or dpkg -l | grep libpurple. On Windows: Look for libpurple.dll in the Pidgin installation directory.Affected if libpurple version corresponds to an affected Pidgin version (2.10.7 or lower)
-
Verify HTTP functionality is in useThis is a passive check: the vulnerability triggers when Pidgin processes HTTP responses from servers, which occurs during normal operation when connecting to services that use HTTP.Affected if Pidgin is actively used or configured to connect to any HTTP-based service (XMPP with HTTP binding, etc.)
The system is affected if Pidgin version 2.10.7 or lower (or any version from 2.0.0 to 2.4.0) is installed and in use, since the vulnerable HTTP response handling code in libpurple is automatically invoked during normal network operations.
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 fixed libpurple library with proper HTTP response size validation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6479 — 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-2013-6479 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