CVE-2013-7484
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 · uneditedZabbix before 5.0 represents passwords in the users table with unsalted MD5.
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 confidenceZabbix versions before 5.0 store user passwords in the users table using unsalted MD5 hashing, which is cryptographically weak and vulnerable to rainbow table attacks and offline password cracking.
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= 2.0.8= 4.4.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 Zabbix server versionRun 'zabbix_server -V' or log into the Zabbix web interface and navigate to Administration > Users > Users to view the version, or query the 'version' table in the Zabbix databaseAffected if The installed version is any release before 5.0 (such as 4.4.x, 4.0.x, 3.0.x, 2.2.x, 2.0.x)
-
Locate the Zabbix databaseIdentify the database server hosting the Zabbix backend (MySQL, PostgreSQL, or Oracle) and connect to it using database credentials from the Zabbix configuration file (usually zabbix_server.conf)Affected if You have access to the Zabbix database backend
-
Inspect password storage in users tableConnect to the Zabbix database and run: SELECT userid, alias, passwd FROM users; (the exact column name may be 'passwd' or 'password' depending on version)Affected if The passwd column contains 32-character hexadecimal strings typical of MD5 hashes, indicating unsalted MD5 is in use
-
Verify password hash formatExamine a sample password hash from the users table. Unsalted MD5 hashes will be exactly 32 hex characters with no salt prefix or cost parameterAffected if The hash appears as a raw 32-character MD5 digest with no additional formatting (no $2a$ bcrypt prefix, no salt value appended)
-
Confirm version is affected by CVECross-reference the installed version number against known affected versions (2.0.8, 4.4.0, and any version before 5.0)Affected if The Zabbix version is 2.0.8, 4.4.0, or any earlier release using the unsalted MD5 password storage
You are affected if your Zabbix installation is version 5.0 or earlier and the users table password column contains raw 32-character MD5 hashes without salt or bcrypt formatting.
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 to Zabbix 5.0 or later which implements proper password hashing (bcrypt). If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement additional access controls on the database and consider enforcing strong passwords to partially mitigate rainbow table risks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7484 — 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-2013-7484 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