CVE-2013-6925
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 integrated HTTPS server in Siemens RuggedCom ROS before 3.12.2 allows remote attackers to hijack web sessions by predicting a session id value.
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 integrated HTTPS server in Siemens RuggedCom ROS before version 3.12.2 uses predictable session ID values, allowing remote attackers to hijack web sessions by predicting valid session IDs. This is a session prediction vulnerability in the web server component that enables unauthorized access to authenticated sessions.
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< 3.12.2CVSS 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
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:C
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 the installed RuggedCom ROS versionAccess the device web interface and navigate to the 'About' or 'System Information' page, or use the CLI command 'show version' to retrieve the firmware version.Affected if The displayed version is any version before 3.12.2 (for example, 3.12.1, 3.11.x, 3.10.x, or earlier).
-
Confirm the HTTPS web server is enabledLog into the RuggedCom ROS web interface and navigate to 'Network Configuration' > 'HTTP/HTTPS Server' or check the service status via CLI using 'show running-config | include https' or similar command.Affected if The HTTPS server service is listed as 'Enabled' or 'Running' in the configuration.
-
Verify the management interface is network-accessibleAttempt to access the HTTPS web interface from a remote client using the device IP address (for example, https://<device-ip>) or check firewall/access control lists.Affected if The HTTPS management interface is reachable from network segments beyond the local administration VLAN.
-
Inspect session ID format for predictabilityLog into the HTTPS web interface, then examine the session cookie or session ID parameter in browser developer tools or via a packet capture. Compare session IDs across multiple login attempts to see if they follow a sequential or easily guessable pattern.Affected if Session IDs increment predictably, follow a simple pattern, or contain easily derivable values (such as sequential numbers or time-based values with low entropy).
The environment is affected if RuggedCom ROS version is below 3.12.2 AND the HTTPS web server is enabled and accessible, with session IDs exhibiting predictable patterns.
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 data3.12.2
Upgrade Siemens RuggedCom ROS to version 3.12.2 or later per Siemens security advisory. If immediate upgrade is not possible, minimize exposure by restricting network access to the HTTPS management interface.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6925 — 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-2013-6925 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