CVE-2013-4392VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2013Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2013-4392: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Oct 2013
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2013-4392, European organizations should ensure that all Linux systems using systemd are updated to versions where this vulnerability is patched. Additionally, organizations should: 1) Restrict local user access to trusted personnel only and enforce the principle of least privilege to minimize the number of users who can exploit this vulnerability. 2) Harden SELinux policies to limit the impact of unauthorized context changes and monitor SELinux alerts for suspicious activity. 3) Implement file integrity monitoring to detect unauthorized changes to critical files and permissions. 4) Use auditing tools to log and review file permission changes and symlink creations. 5) Educate users about the risks of local privilege escalation and enforce strong user authentication and session management to reduce the risk of compromised accounts. 6) Consider isolating critical services and sensitive data on hardened or minimal systems with limited user access to reduce the attack surface.

Description

systemd, when updating file permissions, allows local users to change the permissions and SELinux security contexts for arbitrary files via a symlink attack on unspecified files.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the extent to which systemd is deployed in their Linux environments. Since systemd is the default init system for many popular Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat Enterprise Linux), organizations running Linux servers or workstations are potentially exposed. The vulnerability allows local users to escalate their access by modifying file permissions and SELinux contexts on arbitrary files, which could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data or bypass of security policies. This could compromise confidentiality of critical files, especially in environments enforcing SELinux policies for mandatory access control. While the vulnerability does not directly affect integrity or availability, the unauthorized disclosure or access to sensitive configuration files or credentials could facilitate further attacks. European organizations in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, which rely heavily on Linux systems with strict security policies, could be particularly impacted if local user accounts are compromised or shared. The requirement for local access and user interaction limits the risk from remote attackers but does not eliminate insider threats or risks from compromised user accounts.

CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Symlink Attack (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 21:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-59

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats