CVE-2013-6481
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 · uneditedlibpurple/protocols/yahoo/libymsg.c in Pidgin before 2.10.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a Yahoo! P2P message with a crafted length field, which triggers a buffer over-read.
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 confidenceA buffer over-read vulnerability exists in the Yahoo protocol handler (libpurple/protocols/yahoo/libymsg.c) in Pidgin versions prior to 2.10.8. The vulnerability is triggered when processing incoming Yahoo! P2P messages containing a crafted length field that causes the code to read beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer, resulting in a denial of service (crash).
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 Pidgin installation versionRun 'pidgin --version' or check your package manager for the installed pidgin package versionAffected if The installed version is 2.10.7 or earlier, or matches any of the specific affected versions listed (2.0.0 through 2.4.0 range)
-
Identify if Yahoo protocol plugin is loadedIn Pidgin, go to Accounts > Manage Accounts, or inspect the running process for loaded protocol plugins. On Linux, check /usr/lib/pidgin/ or similar for yahoo.dll/libyahoo.soAffected if The Yahoo protocol plugin (libyahoo or yahoo protocol handler) is present and enabled in the Pidgin configuration
-
Verify the vulnerable library existsCheck for the presence of libymsg.c compiled binary (libymsg.so or yahoo.dll) in the protocol plugins directory, typically found in libpurple/protocols/yahoo/Affected if The Yahoo protocol handler library (libymsg) exists in the Pidgin installation directory, indicating the vulnerable code path is present
-
Confirm Yahoo account is configuredCheck ~/.purple/accounts.xml or through Pidgin UI Accounts menu for any configured Yahoo! accountsAffected if A Yahoo account is configured and active in Pidgin, making the vulnerable code path reachable
You are affected if Pidgin version is 2.10.7 or earlier AND the Yahoo protocol plugin is enabled with a configured Yahoo account, allowing specially crafted Yahoo P2P messages to trigger the buffer over-read.
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 fix for this vulnerability. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider disabling the Yahoo protocol plugin as a temporary workaround.
- 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-2013-6481 — 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-2013-6481 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