CVE-2005-0328
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 · uneditedZyxel P310, P314, P324 and Netgear RT311, RT314 running the latest firmware, allows remote attackers on the WAN to obtain the IP address of the LAN side interface by pinging a valid LAN IP address, which generates an ARP reply from the WAN address side that maps the LAN IP address to the WAN's MAC address.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in legacy Zyxel and Netgear routers allows WAN-side attackers to discover LAN IP addresses by pinging valid LAN IP addresses. The ping triggers an ARP reply that maps the internal LAN IP to the WAN MAC address, leaking the LAN addressing scheme to external attackers.
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 versions= 310= 314= 324CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 modelCheck the physical router or admin interface for the model number (Netgear Rt311, Netgear Rt314, or Zyxel Prestige 310/314/324)Affected if The device is a Netgear Rt311, Rt314, or Zyxel Prestige 310, 314, or 324
-
Check if ICMP ping is accessible from WANFrom an external network, attempt to ping the router's WAN IP address using `ping <wan_ip>` or similar toolAffected if ICMP echo requests to the WAN interface are responded to, indicating the router processes external ping requests
-
Verify ARP behavior from WAN sideSend ARP requests or ICMP pings to internal LAN IP ranges from the WAN side and observe if ARP replies are generated mapping LAN IPs to MAC addressesAffected if ARP replies are returned that reveal LAN IP to MAC mappings in response to WAN-originated requests
-
Confirm LAN IP leakage via ARPCapture network traffic on the WAN side while sending pings to potential LAN IP addresses; check if ARP replies expose internal IP addressesAffected if The router generates ARP replies that map internal LAN IPs, leaking the internal addressing scheme to external attackers
A user is affected if they operate a Netgear Rt311, Rt314, or Zyxel Prestige 310/314/324 router that responds to ICMP/ARP requests from the WAN side, allowing external discovery of internal LAN IP addresses.
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 dataUpdate router firmware to patched versions if available; otherwise, replace affected devices with modern routers or implement strict firewall rules to block ICMP/ARP traffic from WAN to LAN.
- Consultation3.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-0328 — 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-2005-0328 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