CVE-2018-1000155
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 · uneditedOpenFlow version 1.0 onwards contains a Denial of Service and Improper authorization vulnerability in OpenFlow handshake: The DPID (DataPath IDentifier) in the features_reply message are inherently trusted by the controller. that can result in Denial of Service, Unauthorized Access, Network Instability. This attack appear to be exploitable via Network connectivity: the attacker must first establish a transport connection with the OpenFlow controller and then initiate the OpenFlow handshake.
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 confidenceOpenFlow version 1.0 and later suffers from improper validation of the DataPath Identifier (DPID) in features_reply messages during the OpenFlow handshake. The controller inherently trusts the DPID supplied by incoming switch connections without verification, allowing an authenticated attacker who completes the handshake to trigger denial of service, gain unauthorized access to controller functions, or cause network instability.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Confirm OpenFlow controller is exposedIdentify if an OpenFlow controller service (such as Open Networking Foundation OpenFlow) is running and listening on the network. Check for services on well-known OpenFlow ports (6653, 6633) or custom ports configured in your environment.Affected if An OpenFlow controller is active and accepting connections from network switches.
-
Verify switch authentication is enforcedReview controller configuration files and access control settings to determine whether incoming switch connections require authentication before the OpenFlow handshake completes. Look for ACLs, TLS certificates, or pre-shared key configurations.Affected if The controller allows unauthenticated or unauthenticated switch connections to proceed to the features_reply phase of the handshake.
-
Inspect DPID validation logicExamine controller source code or configuration for validation routines that verify the DataPath Identifier (DPID) in incoming features_reply messages against expected or registered values.Affected if The controller does not validate or verify DPID values before trusting them in switch session handling.
-
Check for trusted switch allowlistsReview controller configuration for whitelists or access control lists that explicitly define which DPIDs or switch MAC addresses are permitted to connect.Affected if No DPID or switch source allowlist is configured, allowing arbitrary DPID values in features_reply messages.
-
Review logs for anomalous handshake behaviorExamine controller logs for features_reply messages containing unexpected or duplicate DPIDs, connection attempts from unknown switches, or handshake anomalies.Affected if Logs show features_reply messages with DPIDs that were not pre-registered or validated.
A user is affected if they run an OpenFlow controller that accepts connections without authenticating switches and without validating the DPID supplied in features_reply messages before trusting it.
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 dataImplement strict DPID validation and authentication checks in the controller before trusting any features_reply data; reject connections from untrusted or unauthenticated switch sources at the transport layer to prevent handshake completion by attackers.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1000155 — 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-2018-1000155 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