CVE-2004-0670
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 · uneditedPrestige 650HW-31 running Rompager 4.7 software allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reboot) via a long password.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Prestige 650HW-31 router running Rompager 4.7 web management software is vulnerable to a denial-of-service condition where sending an excessively long password value during authentication triggers a device reboot, causing service interruption.
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 data= 650hw_31= 650r_11CVSS 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 the device modelCheck the physical device label or access the router's admin interface to confirm the exact model number is Zyxel Prestige 650HW-31 or 650R-11Affected if The device model is either 650HW-31 or 650R-11
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the router's web management interface and navigate to the firmware or status page to verify the installed firmware version matches the affected configurationAffected if The device is running the vulnerable firmware version associated with Rompager 4.7
-
Verify Rompager versionAccess the web management interface and check the Rompager version information typically found in the system info or about pageAffected if The web server component is Rompager version 4.7
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleAttempt to access the router's web interface via HTTP on the typical ports (80/443) from an authorized management networkAffected if The web management interface is exposed and reachable, enabling the attack vector
You are affected if you are running a Zyxel Prestige 650HW-31 or 650R-11 router with Rompager 4.7 web management software and the web interface is accessible for authentication attempts.
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 dataIf the device is still in production, determine whether vendor firmware updates are available; if not, plan for replacement with current-generation hardware, as this 2004-era router is likely end-of-life.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-0670 — 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-2004-0670 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