CVE-2006-2298
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 · uneditedThe Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) implementation in the libike library in Solaris 9 and 10 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (in.iked daemon crash) via crafted IKE packets, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1.
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 IKEv1 implementation in the libike library used by the in.iked daemon in Solaris 9 and 10 contains a vulnerability that allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via specially crafted IKE packets, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1.
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= 1CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Solaris versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to identify if the system is running Solaris 9 or Solaris 10Affected if The system is running Solaris 9 or Solaris 10 and is therefore within the affected product range
-
Check if in.iked daemon is runningRun 'svcs -a | grep iked' on Solaris 10 or 'ps -ef | grep in.iked' to determine if the IKE daemon is activeAffected if The in.iked daemon is running, meaning the vulnerable IKEv1 implementation is active
-
Verify IKE service is enabledRun 'svcs -l iked' on Solaris 10 to check the service configuration statusAffected if The IKE service is enabled or in a state that would accept IKE packets (such as 'online' or 'enabled')
-
Identify installed IKE package versionRun 'pkginfo -l SUNWikeu' or 'pkginfo -l SUNWiked' to list the installed IKE package details and versionAffected if The installed IKE package version matches or falls within the affected version range (IKEv1 in Solaris 9/10)
-
Confirm IKE configuration accepts external trafficReview IKE configuration files in /etc/inet/ike_config or check if the daemon is bound to external interfaces using 'netstat -an | grep 500' (ISAKMP port)Affected if The IKE daemon is listening on public-facing interfaces, making it reachable for specially crafted IKE packets
A user is affected if they are running Solaris 9 or 10 with the in.iked daemon enabled and reachable, and the installed IKE package version contains the vulnerable libike library implementation.
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 dataApply Oracle/Sun security patches for this vulnerability to affected Solaris 9 and 10 systems. If patches are unavailable, consider network-based filtering to restrict IKE traffic to trusted sources or disable the in.iked service if IKE is not required.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2298 — 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-2006-2298 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