CVE-2008-3547
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the server in OpenTTD 0.6.1 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (persistent game disruption) or possibly execute arbitrary code via vectors involving many long names for "companies and clients."
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 confidenceBuffer overflow in OpenTTD server versions 0.6.1 and earlier allows authenticated remote users to cause persistent denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code by submitting many long company and client names, indicating insufficient input length validation on name fields.
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<= 0.6.1= 0.1.1= 0.1.2= 0.1.3= 0.1.4= 0.2.0= 0.2.1= 0.3.0= 0.3.1= 0.3.2= 0.3.2.1= 0.3.3CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/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 OpenTTD versionRun 'openttd -v' or check the server binary/version file. On Linux, check the package version or run 'openttd --version'. On Windows, check file properties of openttd.exe.Affected if The version is 0.6.1 or earlier, or matches any of these specific versions: 0.1.1, 0.1.2, 0.1.3, 0.1.4, 0.2.0, 0.2.1, 0.3.0, 0.3.1, 0.3.2, 0.3.2.1, or 0.3.3
-
Verify server is network accessibleCheck if the OpenTTD server process is listening on a network port (default 3979). Use 'netstat -an | findstr 3979' on Windows or 'netstat -tlnp | grep 3979' on Linux.Affected if The server is exposed to a network where untrusted users can connect as clients
-
Confirm client connections are allowedReview server configuration files (openttd.cfg) for settings under [network] section. Check if 'server_bind_ip' allows external connections and 'max_clients' is not set to 0.Affected if The server accepts remote client connections from users outside a trusted local network
-
Check name field handling in configExamine the openttd.cfg configuration file for any name length restrictions. Search for settings like 'max_name_length' or similar. The vulnerability exists if no length limits are enforced on company_name and client_name fields.Affected if No name length limits are configured or enforced in the server settings
You are affected if running any OpenTTD version 0.6.1 or earlier that accepts remote client connections, because the server lacks proper bounds checking on company and client name fields.
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 dataImplement strict length limits on company and client name fields with proper bounds checking before copying to fixed-size buffers; consider upgrading to a patched version if available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3547 — 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-2008-3547 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