CVE-2013-7313
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 Juniper Junos through 13.x, JunosE, and ScreenOS through 6.3.x 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 Juniper Junos and ScreenOS fails to validate for duplicate Link State ID values in incoming Link State Advertisement (LSA) packets before performing database operations. This allows attackers to send crafted LSA packets with duplicate LSIDs to either disrupt routing by corrupting the OSPF database or potentially extract 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= 4.0= 4.1= 4.2= 4.3= 4.4= 5.0= 5.0r3= 5.0r4= 5.1= 5.2= 5.3= 5.4all versions<= 6.3.0= 5.4.0= 6.0.0= 6.1.0= 6.2.0CVSS 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 Juniper product and versionOn Junos, run 'show version' or check /var/db/veriexec. On ScreenOS, run 'get system' or 'get version' to obtain the exact firmware version.Affected if The version matches Junos 4.0-5.4 (any of the listed versions), any Junose version, or ScreenOS 6.3.0 and below (specifically 5.4.0, 6.0.0, 6.1.0, 6.2.0, or prior).
-
Verify OSPF protocol is enabledOn Junos, run 'show protocols ospf' or check the configuration with 'show configuration protocols ospf'. On ScreenOS, run 'get protocol' or 'get interface' to list active OSPF interfaces.Affected if OSPF is actively running or configured on the device. The vulnerability only applies when OSPF is enabled.
-
Confirm the OSPF instance is processing incoming LSA packetsCheck OSPF neighbor state with 'show ospf neighbor' (Junos) or 'get ospf neighbor' (ScreenOS). An active neighbor indicates the device is receiving and processing OSPF LSAs from other routers.Affected if There are active OSPF neighbors and the device is participating in OSPF database exchanges. The device must be receiving LSAs for the duplicate LSID attack to be possible.
You are affected if your Juniper device runs Junos 4.0-5.4, any Junose version, or ScreenOS 6.3.0 or below, and OSPF is actively processing neighbor relationships and receiving LSAs from other routers.
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-provided patches from Juniper for affected Junos and ScreenOS versions. As interim measures, enable OSPF MD5 authentication to prevent injection of malicious LSAs and implement ingress filtering at network boundaries to block suspicious OSPF traffic.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7313 — 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-2013-7313 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