CVE-2013-7312
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 Enterasys switches and routers 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 on Enterasys switches and routers fails to validate for duplicate Link State ID values in incoming Link State Advertisement (LSA) packets before performing database operations. This allows remote attackers sending crafted LSA packets with duplicate LSAs to disrupt routing tables or potentially extract sensitive routing topology 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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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 Enterasys device modelRun 'show version' or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model number matches one of the affected products: C5, G3, K10, K6, S130, S140, S150, or S155Affected if The device model is any of the listed Enterasys switches or routers
-
Verify OSPF is enabledRun 'show ip ospf' or 'show ospf' to check if OSPF routing protocol is configured and active on the deviceAffected if OSPF is enabled and the device is participating in OSPF routing
-
Confirm OSPF interfaces are operationalRun 'show ip ospf interface' to list all interfaces where OSPF is actively sending/receiving LSA packetsAffected if OSPF interfaces are up and exchanging LSAs
-
Check OSPF authentication configurationRun 'show ip ospf interface' and look for authentication configuration (MD5 or HMAC-SHA) on each OSPF-enabled interfaceAffected if OSPF authentication is not configured or is set to 'none' on any OSPF interface
-
Inspect boundary ACLs for OSPF filteringRun 'show access-lists' on edge devices to check if inbound ACLs block OSPF traffic (protocol 89) from untrusted sourcesAffected if No ACLs are configured to filter OSPF traffic at network boundaries and OSPF is exposed to external networks
A user is affected if they are running any Enterasys C5, G3, K10, K6, S130, S140, S150, or S155 device with OSPF enabled and without OSPF authentication or boundary ACLs filtering OSPF traffic.
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 patches from Enterasys (now Extreme Networks). Until patches are available, filter OSPF traffic at network boundaries using ACLs and disable OSPF on untrusted interfaces. Implement OSPF authentication (MD5 or HMAC-SHA) to prevent unauthorized LSA injection.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7312 — 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-2013-7312 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