CVE-2013-7307
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 the Brocade Vyatta vRouter with software before 6.6R1 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 attackers 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 confidenceThe OSPF implementation in Brocade Vyatta vRouter versions before 6.6R1 fails to validate for duplicate Link State ID values in incoming Link State Advertisement (LSA) packets before performing database operations. This allows remote attackers to send crafted LSA packets with duplicate LSIDs to either disrupt routing by corrupting the OSPF database or potentially expose sensitive routing information.
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<= 6.6all versionsCVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:A/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 Vyatta vRouter versionRun 'show version' or check the system about/version information in the Vyatta CLI or consoleAffected if The version is 6.6 or earlier, or is any version of Brocade Vyatta Vrouter (all versions are affected)
-
Determine if OSPF is enabled and configuredRun 'show protocols ospf' or check the OSPF configuration via 'show configuration protocols ospf'Affected if OSPF is actively configured and running on the device
-
Examine the OSPF database for anomaliesRun 'show ospf database' to list all LSAs in the OSPF link-state databaseAffected if Duplicate Link State IDs appear in the database, or database entries show unexpected corruption or inconsistencies
-
Check OSPF neighbor relationships and routing integrityRun 'show ospf neighbor' and compare routing table entries (show ip route) against expected topologyAffected if Neighbors are flapping, dropping, or routing table shows unexpected routes that may indicate database corruption from malicious LSA packets
A user is affected if they are running any version of Brocade Vyatta Vrouter with OSPF enabled and the OSPF database shows duplicate LSIDs or unexpected routing behavior.
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 Brocade Vyatta vRouter software to version 6.6R1 or later to obtain the vendor fix. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, restrict OSPF peer access through authenticated interfaces or ACLs to prevent untrusted parties from sending crafted LSA packets.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7307 — 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-2013-7307 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