CVE-2013-7311
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 in Check Point Gaia OS R75.X and R76 and IPSO OS 6.2 R75.X and R76 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 · high confidenceThe OSPF implementation in Check Point Gaia OS R75.X/R76 and IPSO OS 6.2 R75.X/R76 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 Link State IDs to cause routing disruption (denial of service) or potentially extract sensitive routing 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= r75.0= r76.0= 6.2CVSS 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 Check Point OS versionRun 'cpinfo -y' or check the system documentation to determine if the installed OS is Gaia R75.0, Gaia R76.0, or IPSO 6.2Affected if The system is running Gaia OS version r75.0 or r76.0, or IPSO OS version 6.2
-
Verify OSPF is enabledCheck the OSPF configuration via 'show ospf' or review the product's routing configuration to determine if OSPF routing protocol is activeAffected if OSPF protocol is enabled and running on the affected OS version
-
Confirm OSPF authentication statusInspect the OSPF interface configuration for authentication settings - look for MD5 authentication configuration in the OSPF area or interface settingsAffected if OSPF is enabled without MD5 authentication (unauthenticated OSPF adjacency)
-
Review OSPF neighbor relationshipsCheck OSPF neighbor table via 'show ospf neighbor' to see if neighbors are established and the LSA database is being exchangedAffected if OSPF neighbors exist and LSA exchange is occurring without proper validation protections
You are affected if your system runs Gaia OS R75.0/R76.0 or IPSO OS 6.2 with OSPF enabled and OSPF MD5 authentication is not 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 dataApply Check Point vendor patches/hotfixes for this OSPF vulnerability. As an interim measure, ensure OSPF MD5 authentication is enabled to prevent unauthorized LSA injection, or disable OSPF if not required.
- 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-2013-7311 — 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-2013-7311 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