CVE-2007-6093
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 SRTP implementation in Ingate Firewall before 4.6.0 and SIParator before 4.6.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (kernel crash) via an RTCP index that is "much more than expected."
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 SRTP implementation in Ingate Firewall and SIParator before version 4.6.0 contains a vulnerability where an attacker can send a specially crafted RTCP packet with an abnormally large index value, causing a kernel crash and denial of service.
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<= 4.5.2<= 4.5.2CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 installed Ingate productAccess the Ingate web interface or check system documentation to confirm whether the device is running Ingate Firewall or SIParator software.Affected if The product is Ingate Firewall or SIParator.
-
Determine the software versionLog into the Ingate admin interface and navigate to the System Status or About page to view the installed firmware/software version number.Affected if The installed version is 4.5.2 or any earlier version.
-
Verify SRTP is enabledCheck the Ingate configuration for SRTP (Secure RTP) settings - look for SRTP profile configurations, media security settings, or VoIP/ telephony settings in the web interface or configuration files.Affected if SRTP is enabled and the version is 4.5.2 or earlier.
-
Check network exposure to RTCPReview firewall or network rules to determine if the Ingate device accepts RTCP traffic from untrusted external sources on ports typically used for RTCP (typically port 5004/5005 for RTP/SRTP).Affected if The device accepts RTCP packets from external or untrusted networks.
A user is affected if the installed Ingate Firewall or SIParator version is 4.5.2 or earlier, SRTP is enabled, and the device is exposed to RTCP traffic.
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 dataUpgrade Ingate Firewall and SIParator to version 4.6.0 or later to obtain the vendor patch for this SRTP vulnerability.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6093 — 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-2007-6093 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