CVE-2011-3324
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 ospf6_lsa_is_changed function in ospf6_lsa.c in the OSPFv3 implementation in ospf6d in Quagga before 0.99.19 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via trailing zero values in the Link State Advertisement (LSA) header list of an IPv6 Database Description message.
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 confidenceA denial of service vulnerability exists in the OSPFv3 implementation (ospf6d) in Quagga before 0.99.19. The ospf6_lsa_is_changed function in ospf6_lsa.c fails to properly validate the LSA header list in IPv6 Database Description messages, causing an assertion failure and daemon exit when trailing zero values are present in the LSA header list.
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<= 0.99.18= 0.95= 0.96= 0.96.1= 0.96.2= 0.96.3= 0.96.4= 0.96.5= 0.97.0= 0.97.1= 0.97.2= 0.97.3CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Verify Quagga is installedRun 'quagga -v' or 'rpm -q quagga' or check package manager for quagga packageAffected if Quagga is not installed or package not found
-
Check installed Quagga versionRun 'quagga -v' or check package version via package manager; compare version number to 0.99.19Affected if Version is 0.99.18 or earlier, or matches 0.95, 0.96, 0.96.1, 0.96.2, 0.96.3, 0.96.4, 0.96.5, 0.97.0, 0.97.1, 0.97.2, or 0.97.3
-
Confirm ospf6d daemon is runningCheck process list with 'ps aux | grep ospf6d' or check if ospf6d is listed as active in service/status outputAffected if ospf6d daemon is running and serving OSPFv3
-
Verify OSPFv3 is configuredCheck Quagga configuration files (typically in /etc/quagga/ or via 'vtysh -c "show running-config"') for 'router ospf6' or OSPFv3 interface configurationAffected if OSPFv3 routing is configured and active
-
Check for OSPFv3 Database Description message handlingMonitor ospf6d daemon logs for assertion failures or unexpected exits; review network traffic for OSPFv3 packets on UDP port 89Affected if Daemon crashes with assertion failure related to ospf6_lsa or LSA header processing
You are affected if Quagga version is 0.99.18 or earlier, or one of the specific affected versions (0.95, 0.96.x series, or 0.97.x series), AND the ospf6d daemon is running with OSPFv3 configured.
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 Quagga to version 0.99.19 or later. If upgrading is not immediately possible, consider filtering or rate-limiting OSPFv3 Database Description messages at network borders to reduce exposure to unauthenticated remote attackers.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-3324 — 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-2011-3324 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