CVE-2015-7599
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 · uneditedInteger overflow in the _authenticate function in svc_auth.c in Wind River VxWorks 5.5 through 6.9.4.1, when the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) protocol is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a username and password.
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 confidenceInteger overflow in the _authenticate function in svc_auth.c in Wind River VxWorks versions 5.5 through 6.9.4.1, when the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) protocol is enabled. Remote attackers can trigger the overflow via crafted username and password, causing denial of service (crash) or potentially achieving arbitrary code execution.
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<= 6.9.4.1= 5.5= 6.4= 6.7= 6.8= 6.9CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 VxWorks versionQuery the system for its VxWorks version identifier (typically via kernel configuration, boot parameters, or system information utilities provided by the platform)Affected if The version matches 5.5, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, or any version up to and including 6.9.4.1 (versions between 5.5 and 6.9.4.1 are affected)
-
Confirm RPC protocol is enabledInspect the VxWorks kernel or runtime configuration to determine whether the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) subsystem is loaded and activeAffected if RPC protocol is enabled or loaded in the current configuration
-
Verify RPC service exposureCheck network configuration or service definitions to determine if RPC-based services (particularly svc_auth or remote authentication services) are exposed and accessibleAffected if RPC authentication services are accessible from the network or accept remote connections
-
Inspect _authenticate function usageReview application or system configuration to determine if the svc_auth.c _authenticate function is invoked during RPC authentication flowsAffected if The system uses RPC-based authentication that invokes the vulnerable _authenticate function in svc_auth.c
The environment is affected if the VxWorks version falls within 5.5 through 6.9.4.1 AND the RPC protocol is enabled, allowing remote attackers to trigger the integer overflow via crafted username/password to the _authenticate function.
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 dataDisable RPC protocol if not required; otherwise apply vendor-supplied patches for VxWorks. Network-segment RPC services behind firewalls to limit exposure to unauthenticated remote attackers.
- 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-2015-7599 — 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-2015-7599 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