CVE-2015-8041
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 · uneditedMultiple integer overflows in the NDEF record parser in hostapd before 2.5 and wpa_supplicant before 2.5 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash or infinite loop) via a large payload length field value in an (1) WPS or (2) P2P NFC NDEF record, which triggers an out-of-bounds read.
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 vulnerabilities exist in the NDEF record parser of hostapd and wpa_supplicant (versions prior to 2.5). By sending specially crafted NFC NDEF records with oversized payload length fields in WPS or P2P contexts, remote attackers can trigger out-of-bounds reads, causing the process to crash or enter an infinite loop, resulting in denial of service.
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<= 2.4= 13.1= 13.2<= 2.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 wpa_supplicant versionRun 'wpa_supplicant -v' or 'wpa_supplicant --version' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version is 2.4 or lower
-
Identify hostapd versionRun 'hostapd -v' or 'hostapd --version' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version is 2.4 or lower
-
Check for NFC WPS configurationInspect the wpa_supplicant configuration file (commonly /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf or /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf) for 'wps_nfc' or 'nfc' directives, or check if 'wps_nfc=1' or similar NFC WPS options are presentAffected if NFC-based WPS pairing is explicitly enabled in the configuration
-
Check for NFC P2P configurationInspect the hostapd or wpa_supplicant configuration for 'p2p_nfc' directives or NFC-related P2P settingsAffected if NFC-based P2P pairing is explicitly enabled in the configuration
-
Check active NFC interfacesRun 'ip link show' or check /sys/class/net/ for NFC interface presence, and review running wpa_supplicant/hostapd process arguments for NFC-related flagsAffected if NFC interfaces are active with wpa_supplicant or hostapd handling NFC NDEF messages
You are affected if you are running wpa_supplicant or hostapd version 2.4 or lower AND have NFC-based WPS or P2P pairing features enabled in your configuration.
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 hostapd and wpa_supplicant to version 2.5 or later to patch the integer overflows in the NDEF parser. If immediate patching is not possible, disable NFC-based WPS/P2P pairing features as a temporary workaround.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8041 — 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-2015-8041 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