CVE-2008-0263
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 SIP module in Ingate Firewall before 4.6.1 and SIParator before 4.6.1 does not reuse SIP media ports in unspecified call hold and send-only stream scenarios, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (port exhaustion) via unspecified vectors.
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 SIP module in Ingate Firewall and SIParator before version 4.6.1 fails to properly reuse SIP media ports during call hold and send-only stream scenarios. This causes the system to continuously allocate new ports without releasing unused ones, eventually leading to port exhaustion and denial of service. Remote attackers can trigger this condition through specific SIP call handling sequences.
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<= 4.6<= 4.6CVSS 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 installed Ingate productDetermine whether the system is running Ingate Firewall or Ingate SIParator. This may be visible in the system documentation, license information, or management interface.Affected if The system is running either Ingate Firewall or Ingate SIParator.
-
Determine the installed software versionAccess the product management interface or check system files to obtain the exact version number of the Ingate Firewall or SIParator installation.Affected if The installed version is 4.6 or any earlier version (4.5, 4.4, etc.). Versions prior to 4.6.1 are affected.
-
Verify the SIP module is enabledCheck the product configuration to confirm the SIP module or SIP proxy functionality is actively enabled and processing SIP traffic.Affected if The SIP module is enabled and configured to handle SIP call traffic.
-
Monitor for port exhaustion symptomsObserve system network statistics or port usage logs to identify if a large number of SIP media ports (typically in the UDP port range configured for RTP) are in use without being released, particularly during or after call hold or send-only stream scenarios.Affected if Ports are accumulating and not being released during SIP call hold or send-only scenarios, leading to port exhaustion.
A system is affected if it runs Ingate Firewall or SIParator version 4.6 or earlier with the SIP module enabled and is experiencing port exhaustion during SIP call handling.
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 to Ingate Firewall or SIParator version 4.6.1 or later. As a temporary workaround, consider implementing rate limiting or connection tracking to mitigate port exhaustion while the upgrade is being planned.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,248.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-0263 — 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-2008-0263 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