JuviaApplication · Phusion

CVE-2013-7134

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2014-04-29
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Juvia uses the same secret key for all installations, which allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging the secret key in app/config/initializers/secret_token.rb, related to cookies.

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 confidence

Juvia, a Rails-based commenting application, ships with a hardcoded secret key in app/config/initializers/secret_token.rb that is identical across all installations. Attackers who obtain this default key can forge session cookies, potentially allowing session hijacking or authentication bypass.

MitigationReplace the hardcoded secret key in secret_token.rb with a unique, randomly generated key per installation (commonly done via environment variable SECRET_KEY_BASE), and invalidate any existing sessions to prevent cookie forgery attacks.

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
JuviaApplication
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate Juvia installation directory
    Search for the Juvia application directory, typically in /var/www/, /opt/, or the application's root folder. Look for the characteristic app/config/initializers/ directory structure typical of Rails applications.
    Affected if Juvia is installed on the system
  2. Find secret_token.rb initialization file
    Navigate to app/config/initializers/secret_token.rb within the Juvia installation directory and view its contents.
    Affected if The file exists and contains a secret_key_base definition
  3. Identify secret key configuration method
    Examine secret_token.rb to determine whether the secret key is defined as a static hardcoded string or loaded from an environment variable (such as SECRET_KEY_BASE). Look for lines like 'Juvia::Application.config.secret_key_base =' followed by either a long random-looking string or a method call like 'ENV["SECRET_KEY_BASE"]'.
    Affected if The secret key is a hardcoded static string rather than loaded from an environment variable
  4. Verify key uniqueness across installations
    If a hardcoded key is present, check whether it appears to be a default value by reviewing version control history, documentation, or comparing against known default values. A default key would be identical across all Juvia installations.
    Affected if The secret key appears to be a default value used across all installations rather than a unique per-installation value
  5. Check session cookie configuration
    Inspect config/initializers/session_store.rb to confirm that session cookies are signed using the secret_token.rb key. This confirms the attack surface exists.
    Affected if Session cookies are configured to use the secret key from secret_token.rb

The environment is affected if Juvia is running with a hardcoded, default secret key in secret_token.rb rather than a unique per-installation key loaded from an environment variable, allowing potential session cookie forgery.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Replace the hardcoded secret key in secret_token.rb with a unique, randomly generated key per installation (commonly done via environment variable SECRET_KEY_BASE), and invalidate any existing sessions to prevent cookie forgery attacks.

Fix this in Juvia Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
5.0 hours of engineering $860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7134 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-7134 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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