CVE-2013-6463 in Linux
Summary
by MITRE
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2013-7266, CVE-2013-7267, CVE-2013-7268, CVE-2013-7269, CVE-2013-7270, CVE-2013-7271. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2013-7266, CVE-2013-7267, CVE-2013-7268, CVE-2013-7269, CVE-2013-7270, and CVE-2013-7271. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2013-7266, CVE-2013-7267, CVE-2013-7268, CVE-2013-7269, CVE-2013-7270, and/or CVE-2013-7271 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 03/29/2019
CVE-2013-6463 represents a rejected candidate identifier that was superseded by multiple related vulnerabilities within the same vulnerability family. This rejection occurred because the candidate number was deemed a duplicate of six other CVE identifiers including CVE-2013-7266 through CVE-2013-7271. The duplication issue highlights the importance of proper CVE assignment procedures and the need for careful coordination between different CVE Numbering Authorities to prevent confusion in vulnerability tracking and management systems. Organizations maintaining vulnerability databases and security information systems must ensure they reference the correct CVE identifiers to avoid operational disruptions and maintain accurate threat intelligence. The rejected candidate number serves as a reminder of the critical nature of CVE numbering consistency and the potential for operational impacts when duplicate identifiers exist in security databases. Security teams should always verify CVE references against official sources and cross-reference with the replacement identifiers to ensure they are working with the most current and accurate vulnerability information.
The rejection of CVE-2013-6463 demonstrates the complexity of vulnerability management within cybersecurity operations and the importance of maintaining clean, non-overlapping CVE assignments. When duplicate identifiers exist, it creates confusion for security professionals, automated systems, and vulnerability management tools that rely on unique CVE references for tracking and remediation. This situation can lead to misclassification of vulnerabilities, incorrect patch prioritization, and potential gaps in security coverage. The affected CVEs from 2013-7266 to 2013-7271 likely represent a series of interconnected vulnerabilities that were originally grouped under a single candidate number but were properly separated into distinct identifiers for better tracking. The proper CVE assignment process requires careful review and coordination to prevent such duplication scenarios that can compromise security operations and incident response procedures. This rejection underscores the necessity for robust validation processes in CVE assignment and the importance of maintaining integrity in vulnerability identification systems.
Security organizations should implement procedures to verify CVE references during vulnerability assessments and patch management activities. The improper handling of duplicate CVE identifiers can result in significant operational consequences including delayed remediation efforts, incorrect risk assessments, and compromised security posture. The replacement CVE identifiers from the 2013-7266 through 2013-7271 range likely encompass various aspects of the same vulnerability family, potentially covering different exploitation vectors, affected products, or severity levels. This pattern of multiple related vulnerabilities sharing a common root cause demonstrates the complexity of modern software security challenges and the need for comprehensive vulnerability analysis. The CVE numbering authorities must maintain strict protocols to prevent such duplicate assignments while ensuring that all related vulnerabilities are properly identified and tracked in security databases. Organizations implementing vulnerability management programs should establish verification processes that check CVE references against authoritative sources and maintain awareness of CVE candidate rejections to maintain effective security operations. The incident surrounding CVE-2013-6463 illustrates the importance of continuous monitoring and validation of vulnerability data sources to ensure accurate threat intelligence and effective security response capabilities.