CVE-2013-4806
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 OSPF implementation on HP JD9##A routers; HP J4###A, J484#B, J8###A, JD3##A, JE###A, and JF55#A switches; HP 3COM routers and switches; and HP H3C routers and switches does not consider the possibility of duplicate Link State ID values in Link State Advertisement (LSA) packets before performing operations on the LSA database, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (routing disruption) or obtain sensitive packet information via a crafted LSA packet, a related issue to CVE-2013-0149.
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 confidenceHP/3COM/H3C routers and switches have a flaw in OSPF implementation where duplicate Link State IDs in LSA packets are not validated before database operations. This allows authenticated remote attackers to craft malicious LSA packets causing routing disruption (DoS) or potentially extract sensitive packet information from the LSA database.
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= 3012= 3018= 5012= 5232= 5642= 5642_taa= 5682= jg311a= jd378a= jd371a= jd379a= jd374a= jd373a= jd377aCVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:P/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 your device modelRun 'display device' or 'show system-information' or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model number (e.g., 3012, jg311a, jd378a)Affected if The model matches any of the listed affected models: 3012, 3018, 5012, 5232, 5642, 5642_taa, 5682, jg311a, jd378a, jd371a, jd379a, jd374a, jd373a, jd377a
-
Verify OSPF is enabledRun 'display ospf' or 'show ospf' to check if OSPF process is active on the deviceAffected if OSPF is running and the device model is in the affected list
-
Check OSPF area configurationRun 'display ospf interface' or 'show ospf interface' to see which interfaces have OSPF enabled and their area assignmentsAffected if OSPF is enabled on any interface and the device is an affected model
-
Inspect OSPF authentication settingsRun 'display ospf interface' or check OSPF configuration with 'display current-configuration | include ospf' to verify if MD5 authentication is configured on OSPF interfacesAffected if OSPF is enabled without MD5 authentication (using none, simple text, or no authentication) and the device is in the affected list
You are affected if your device model matches one of the listed products AND OSPF is enabled, especially without MD5 authentication configured on OSPF interfaces.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied firmware updates for affected devices. Until patches are available, restrict OSPF peering to trusted interfaces only and implement OSPF MD5 authentication to prevent unauthorized LSA injection.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4806 — 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-2013-4806 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