CVE-2015-8735
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 get_value function in epan/dissectors/packet-btatt.c in the Bluetooth Attribute (aka BT ATT) dissector in Wireshark 2.0.x before 2.0.1 uses an incorrect integer data type, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (invalid write operation and application crash) via a crafted packet.
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 Bluetooth Attribute (BT ATT) dissector in Wireshark 2.0.x before 2.0.1 contains an incorrect integer data type in the get_value function within packet-btatt.c. This type mismatch allows a remote attacker to cause an invalid write operation by sending a crafted packet, resulting in a denial of service via application crash.
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= 2.0.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if Wireshark is installedRun 'wireshark --version' or 'tshark --version' to determine the installed Wireshark versionAffected if Command returns version information showing Wireshark 2.0.0
-
Verify exact version numberCompare the installed version string to the affected version '2.0.0'Affected if Version is exactly 2.0.0 (2.0.1 and later are not affected)
-
Confirm BT ATT dissector presenceCheck if the BT ATT dissector module exists in the Wireshark installation - look for packet-btatt.c or the compiled dissector in the plugins directoryAffected if BT ATT dissector is present and loadable in the installation
-
Determine if BT ATT traffic is being analyzedInspect whether the environment captures or analyzes Bluetooth ATT protocol traffic (common in Bluetooth LE captures)Affected if BT ATT protocol packets are being dissected or can be opened in Wireshark
You are affected if Wireshark version 2.0.0 is installed and the BT ATT dissector is available for processing Bluetooth ATT 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 dataUpgrade to Wireshark 2.0.1 or later to obtain the corrected integer data type handling in the BT ATT dissector.
- 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-2015-8735 — 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-2015-8735 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