SQL injection vulnerability in the web interface for cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary S
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 31/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.8% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 79.2% of all records.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: cumin (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2::el5) 0:0.1.5787-4.el5; rubygems (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:computenode:el6) 0:1.8.23.2-1.el6; cumin (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:server:el6) 0:0.1.5787-4.el6.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to cumin (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2::el5) 0:0.1.5787-4.el5; rubygems (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:computenode:el6) 0:1.8.23.2-1.el6; cumin (Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:server:el6) 0:0.1.5787-4.el6 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
SQL injection vulnerability in the web interface for cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via vectors related to the "filtering table operator."
- Published
- Dec 23, 2013
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.8% · 79th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 1.8%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| redhat | enterprise mrg | cpe:2.3:o:redhat:enterprise_mrg |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- redhat enterprise mrg2.4
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2::el5 | cumin | before 0:0.1.5787-4.el5 | 0:0.1.5787-4.el5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:computenode:el6 | rubygems | before 0:1.8.23.2-1.el6 | 0:1.8.23.2-1.el6 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:server:el6 | cumin | before 0:0.1.5787-4.el6 | 0:0.1.5787-4.el6 |
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2012-3460cumin: At installation postgresql database user created without password39Monitor
- CVE-2010-4179The installation documentation for Red Hat Enterprise Messaging, Realtime and Grid (MRG) 1.3 recommends that Condor should be configured so 31Monitor
- CVE-2013-4405Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the web interface for cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 allow remote at27Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2013-4404Dec 23, 2013 · cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 does not properly enforce user roles, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended ro27Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2013-4414Dec 23, 2013 · Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the web interface for cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 allows remote attackers to inject18Monitor
- Later →CVE-2013-6445Apr 30, 2014 · Cumin (aka MRG Management Console), as used in Red Hat Enterprise MRG 2.5, uses the DES-based crypt function to hash passwords, which makes 20Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| red hat:cumin | 0:0.1.5787-4.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2::el5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:rubygems | 0:1.8.23.2-1.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_mrg:2:computenode:el6 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- P · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- P
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-89 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')CVSS vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd-primary
Root cause
The query text is built by concatenating user input. The database cannot tell where the data ends and the command begins.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-89 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = '" + owner + "'");Fixed
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = $1", [owner]);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Expanding Control over the Operating System from the DatabaseCAPEC-470Very High
- SQL InjectionCAPEC-66likelihood: High · High
- Blind SQL InjectionCAPEC-7likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (2 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.