CVE-2010-2363
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 IPv6 Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) implementation on the SEIL/X1, SEIL/X2, and SEIL/B1 routers with firmware 1.00 through 2.73, when strict mode is used, does not properly drop packets, which might allow remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via a spoofed IP 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 confidenceThe IPv6 Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) strict mode implementation on SEIL/X1, SEIL/X2, and SEIL/B1 routers (firmware 1.00-2.73) fails to properly validate and drop packets with spoofed source IPv6 addresses. This allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions by spoofing the source IP address, as the RPF check does not correctly validate the packet's source against the routing table.
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= 1.10= 1.11= 1.20= 1.21= 1.22= 1.30= 1.31= 1.32= 1.40= 1.41= 1.43= 1.44= 1.00= 1.10= 1.11= 1.20= 1.21= 1.22= 1.30= 1.31= 1.32= 1.40= 1.41= 1.43= 1.00= 2.01= 2.10= 2.20= 2.30= 2.40= 2.41= 2.42= 2.50= 2.51= 2.52= 2.60CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 the router modelLog into the SEIL router CLI or web interface and confirm the model (SEIL/X1, SEIL/X2, or SEIL/B1). Use command like 'show system' or check the web interface status page.Affected if The device is not a SEIL/X1, SEIL/X2, or SEIL/B1 router
-
Check the installed firmware versionExecute 'show version' or 'show system' in the SEIL CLI to retrieve the firmware version number.Affected if The firmware version is 1.00 through 2.73 (including the specific versions listed: 1.10, 1.11, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.30, 1.31, 1.32, 1.40, 1.41, 1.43, 1.44 for X1; 1.00-1.43 for X2; 1.00-2.60 for B1)
-
Verify IPv6 is enabledCheck the router configuration for IPv6 settings using 'show config' or reviewing the web interface IPv6 configuration section.Affected if IPv6 is enabled on the router
-
Confirm IPv6 Unicast RPF strict mode is configuredExamine the router's IPv6 RPF configuration using 'show ip6 routes' or 'show config' to see if 'ip6 urpf strict' or similar RPF strict mode setting is present and enabled.Affected if IPv6 Unicast RPF strict mode is enabled on the affected firmware version
The environment is affected if the device is a SEIL/X1, SEIL/X2, or SEIL/B1 router running firmware version 1.00-2.73 with IPv6 Unicast RPF strict mode enabled.
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 SEIL router firmware to a version beyond 2.73 (contact vendor for specific fixed version). If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement supplementary IPv6 packet filtering at network perimeter devices to block spoofed traffic.
- 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-2010-2363 — 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-2010-2363 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