CVE-2002-2116
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 · uneditedNetgear RM-356 and RT-338 series SOHO routers allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a UDP port scan, as demonstrated using nmap.
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 Netgear RM-356 and RT-338 series SOHO routers contain a vulnerability where receiving a UDP port scan (such as from nmap) causes the device to crash, resulting in denial of service. The exact root cause (e.g., buffer overflow, improper packet handling) is not specified in the available description.
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 dataall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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.
-
Identify router modelLocate the device label or check network documentation to confirm the exact model number is Netgear RM-356 or RT-338Affected if The device is a Netgear RM-356 or RT-338 router (all versions)
-
Verify network exposureCheck whether the router WAN interface is directly accessible from external networks, or determine if upstream firewall protection existsAffected if The router WAN interface can receive unsolicited UDP traffic from the internet
-
Confirm device is activeDetermine if the router is currently deployed and in use on the networkAffected if The router is actively processing network traffic and could receive a UDP port scan
-
Assess UDP accessibilityReview firewall rules or network configuration to see if inbound UDP packets to common ports can reach the routerAffected if No firewall or filter is blocking external UDP packets from reaching the router
You are affected if you are actively using a Netgear RM-356 or RT-338 router that can receive unsolicited UDP port scans from external networks.
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.
From vendor dataThese are end-of-life devices from 2002 with no available firmware patches. Replace with a supported router. As a temporary workaround, implement firewall rules to block unauthorized external UDP scans or isolate the router behind a stateful firewall.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-2116 — 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-2002-2116 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