Strong PasswordApplication · Strong Password Project
CVE-2019-13354
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 strong_password gem 0.0.7 for Ruby, as distributed on RubyGems.org, included a code-execution backdoor inserted by a third party. The current version, without this backdoor, is 0.0.6.
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 strong_password gem version 0.0.7 for Ruby contained a malicious code-execution backdoor that was inserted by a third party, likely through a compromised RubyGems.org account or supply chain attack. This backdoor allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on any system running the compromised gem version.
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
Strong PasswordApplication
= 0.0.7CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 strong_password gem is installedRun `gem list strong_password` or check your Gemfile/Gemfile.lock for a dependency on the strong_password gemAffected if The gem is present in your dependencies
-
Identify the installed version of strong_passwordRun `gem list strong_password` to see the installed version number, or inspect the version in your Gemfile.lock under the strong_password entryAffected if The version listed is 0.0.7 exactly
-
Verify against affected version rangeCompare your installed version to the affected range: strong_password version 0.0.7Affected if Your installed version is exactly 0.0.7
You are affected if the strong_password gem version 0.0.7 is installed in your Ruby environment, as this specific version contains the malicious backdoor code.
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.
dbcve · scopedImmediately downgrade from gem version 0.0.7 to version 0.0.6 (or the latest safe version), audit affected systems for signs of compromise since arbitrary code could have been executed, and review gem dependency chains for similar supply chain risks.
strong_password version 0.0.6 (or migrate to alternative password validation library)
- Check your Gemfile.lock for the strong_password gem version
- If version 0.0.7 is present, immediately remove it from your Gemfile
- Add gem 'strong_password', '~> 0.0.6' to your Gemfile to use the last known safe version
- Run 'bundle install' or 'bundle update strong_password' to apply the change
- Audit your application for any suspicious behavior or unauthorized access since the compromise date
- Consider migrating to an alternative password strength validation library if stronger ongoing support is needed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Strong Password
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2019-13354 — 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-2019-13354 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