← Vulnerability feed

Vulnerability record · CVE-2013-2566 · published 15 March 2013

CVE-2013-2566: RC4 in TLS/SSL has single-byte biases enabling plaintext recovery

Oracle · Communications Application Session Controller

The RC4 stream cipher as used in TLS and SSL exhibits many single-byte biases, allowing statistical analysis of ciphertext across many sessions that encrypt the same plaintext to recover that plaintext. Because RC4 was widely deployed as a TLS cipher, any service still offering RC4 suites is exposed to this cryptographic weakness. The record does not specify affected versions beyond vendor product names.

5.9 CVSS 3.1 Medium EPSS 84% · top 0.3% CWE-326 · Inadequate encryption strengthCWE-327 · Broken cryptographic algorithm
5.9CVSS 3.1 base score, v2 4.3
84%EPSS exploitation probability, 30 days
NoNot in CISA KEV
16Affected product versions listed by NVD
42References
16 Jun 2026Last modified by NVD

Description

The RC4 algorithm, as used in the TLS protocol and SSL protocol, has many single-byte biases, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct plaintext-recovery attacks via statistical analysis of ciphertext in a large number of sessions that use the same plaintext.

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

Automated analysis

Generated by VULONE's analysis model from the NVD record, CISA KEV and EPSS data on 18 September 2026. Confidence: medium.

medium priorityThe flaw is a protocol-level cryptographic weakness with high confidentiality impact and very high EPSS, but exploitation requires large volumes of same-plaintext sessions and no KEV or in-the-wild confirmation is present.

What it is

The RC4 stream cipher as used in TLS and SSL exhibits many single-byte biases, allowing statistical analysis of ciphertext across many sessions that encrypt the same plaintext to recover that plaintext. Because RC4 was widely deployed as a TLS cipher, any service still offering RC4 suites is exposed to this cryptographic weakness. The record does not specify affected versions beyond vendor product names.

Impact

A remote attacker who can observe a large number of TLS/SSL sessions carrying the same plaintext can statistically recover portions of that plaintext, defeating the confidentiality the encryption was meant to provide. The CVSS vector rates confidentiality impact as high with no integrity or availability impact.

Attack surface

Reachable over the network (AV:N) by a remote attacker who can passively capture or observe many sessions using the same plaintext; no authentication (PR:N) and no user interaction (UI:N) are required. The attack is against the TLS/SSL protocol's use of RC4 rather than a specific application endpoint.

Exploitation

Not listed in CISA KEV and no ransomware associations are documented, but EPSS is very high (0.844, ~99.7th percentile), indicating strong predicted likelihood of exploitation activity. All references are third-party advisories and issue tracking, with no public exploit code or in-the-wild confirmation cited in the record.

What to do

  • Disable RC4 cipher suites in TLS/SSL configurations on all servers and clients, prioritizing TLS 1.2+ with AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM or ChaCha20-Poly1305.
  • Apply vendor updates for the listed products (Oracle, Fujitsu, Canonical/Ubuntu, Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey) that remove or deprecate RC4 support.
  • Audit internal and external TLS endpoints for RC4 negotiation and remediate any that still permit it, including firmware on the listed Oracle SPARC and ILOM devices.
  • Where RC4 cannot be removed immediately, limit exposure by segmenting traffic and reducing the number of sessions that carry identical plaintext.

Detection

  • Scan TLS endpoints for RC4 cipher suite support and flag any server that negotiates RC4 during handshakes.
  • Monitor TLS handshake logs for cipher suite selections containing RC4 and alert on their continued use.
  • Review configuration baselines and change records for RC4 being re-enabled or left enabled after patch cycles.

This assessment is produced automatically and is not human-reviewed. Verify against the vendor advisory before acting on it.

Affected products

16 vulnerable configurations from NVD's CPE data, grouped by vendor and product.

References

LinkTags
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/03/attack-of-week-rc4-is-kind-of-broken-in.html Third Party Advisory
http://cr.yp.to/talks/2013.03.12/slides.pdf Third Party Advisory
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=JSA10705 Third Party Advisory
http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=143039468003789&w=2 Issue TrackingThird Party Advisory
http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2013/03/20/on-the-precariousness-of-rc4 Third Party Advisory
http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-201406-19.xml Third Party Advisory
http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/ Third Party Advisory
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-103.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/unified/1215/ Third Party Advisory
http://www.opera.com/security/advisory/1046 Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2016v3-2985753.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2016-2881720.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2016-2881722.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796 Third Party AdvisoryVDB Entry
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-2031-1 Third Party Advisory
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-2032-1 Third Party Advisory
https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c05289935 Third Party Advisory
https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c05336888 Third Party Advisory
https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201504-01 Third Party Advisory
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/03/attack-of-week-rc4-is-kind-of-broken-in.html Third Party Advisory
http://cr.yp.to/talks/2013.03.12/slides.pdf Third Party Advisory
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=JSA10705 Third Party Advisory
http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=143039468003789&w=2 Issue TrackingThird Party Advisory
http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2013/03/20/on-the-precariousness-of-rc4 Third Party Advisory
http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-201406-19.xml Third Party Advisory
http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/ Third Party Advisory
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-103.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/unified/1215/ Third Party Advisory
http://www.opera.com/security/advisory/1046 Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2016v3-2985753.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2016-2881720.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2016-2881722.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html Third Party Advisory
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796 Third Party AdvisoryVDB Entry
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-2031-1 Third Party Advisory
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-2032-1 Third Party Advisory
https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c05289935 Third Party Advisory

Track CVE-2013-2566 inside VULONE

Watch it alongside the ransomware crews, C2 infrastructure and forum chatter that reference it, query it through the API and pull it into your SIEM over TAXII.

Start free Open in platform

Related vulnerabilities

Same products first, then exploited flaws of the same weakness class.

9.8CVE-2020-11651SaltStack Salt master authentication bypass in ClearFuncsSaltStack Salt before 2019.2.4 and 3000 before 3000.2 fails to properly validate method calls in the salt-master ClearFuncs class, allowing remote un…KEVEPSS 97%analysed9.8CVE-2020-7247OpenSMTPD MAIL FROM command injection allows remote root code executionOpenSMTPD 6.6, as shipped in OpenBSD 6.6 and other products, mishandles input validation in smtp_mailaddr in smtp_session.c, returning an incorrect v…KEVEPSS 99%analysed9.8CVE-2019-11043PHP-FPM buffer overflow enables remote code executionPHP-FPM in certain configurations writes past allocated buffers into FCGI protocol data space, an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787, CWE-120). It affects …KEVEPSS 100%analysed9.8CVE-2019-16928Exim heap buffer overflow in string_vformat via long EHLO commandExim 4.92 through 4.92.2 contains a heap-based buffer overflow in string_vformat in string.c triggered by a long EHLO command, allowing remote code e…KEVEPSS 42%analysed9.8CVE-2019-10149Exim MTA improper recipient validation leads to remote command executionExim versions 4.87 through 4.91 fail to properly validate recipient addresses in the deliver_message() function in /src/deliver.c, allowing command i…KEVEPSS 100%analysed9.8CVE-2018-6789Exim SMTP base64d buffer overflow allows remote code executionExim before 4.90.1 contains a buffer overflow in the base64d function of its SMTP listener. A handcrafted message can trigger the overflow, and the f…KEVEPSS 82%analysed9.8CVE-2016-8735Apache Tomcat JmxRemoteLifecycleListener remote code executionApache Tomcat's JmxRemoteLifecycleListener was not updated to match the Oracle CVE-2016-3427 credential-type fix, leaving a deserialization weakness …KEVEPSS 90%analysed9.8CVE-2016-3427Oracle Java SE JMX Improper Access Control VulnerabilityCVE-2016-3427 is an unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 6u113, 7u99, 8u77, Java SE Embedded 8u77, and JRockit R28.3.9, reached through vector…KEVEPSS 92%analysed

Source: NIST National Vulnerability Database (record CVE-2013-2566), CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS (scores of 2026-09-26). This page is refreshed as NVD updates the record.