WiresharkApplication
CVE-2016-2530
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 dissct_rsl_ipaccess_msg function in epan/dissectors/packet-rsl.c in the RSL dissector in Wireshark 1.12.x before 1.12.10 and 2.0.x before 2.0.2 mishandles the case of an unrecognized TLV type, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and application crash) via a crafted packet, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-2531.
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 RSL dissector in Wireshark contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the dissct_rsl_ipaccess_msg function. When the dissector encounters an unrecognized TLV (Type-Length-Value) type in a crafted packet, it fails to properly validate the data, leading to an out-of-bounds memory access and 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
WiresharkApplication
= 1.12.0= 1.12.1= 1.12.2= 1.12.3= 1.12.4= 1.12.5= 1.12.6= 1.12.7= 1.12.8= 1.12.9= 2.0.0= 2.0.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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 installed Wireshark versionRun 'wireshark --version' or 'tshark --version' to determine the exact version of Wireshark installedAffected if Version is 1.12.0 through 1.12.9, or 2.0.0, or 2.0.1 (versions before 1.12.10 or 2.0.2)
-
Verify RSL dissector is availableCheck if the RSL dissector plugin file exists in the Wireshark plugins directory (typically epan/dissectors in the installation folder)Affected if The RSL dissector is present in the installation
-
Confirm RSL protocol decoding is enabledIn Wireshark, go to Analyze > Enabled Protocols and verify RSL is not disabled, or check that RSL traffic is being captured/decoded in capture filesAffected if RSL protocol is enabled and Wireshark is parsing RSL packets
-
Identify RSL traffic presenceExamine captured network traffic or pcap files for GSM RSL (Radio Subsystem Link) protocol packets on port 1998 or typical GSM Abis interfacesAffected if RSL protocol packets are being processed by Wireshark
User is affected if running Wireshark version 1.12.0-1.12.9 or 2.0.0-2.0.1 AND the RSL dissector is enabled while processing RSL traffic that contains unrecognized TLV types
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 version 1.12.10 or 2.0.2 or later, which contain the fix for proper handling of unrecognized TLV types in the RSL dissector.
Fix this in Wireshark
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2530 — 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-2016-2530 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