CVE-2018-10242
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 · uneditedSuricata version 4.0.4 incorrectly handles the parsing of the SSH banner. A malformed SSH banner can cause the parsing code to read beyond the allocated data because SSHParseBanner in app-layer-ssh.c lacks a length check.
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 confidenceSuricata 4.0.4 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in the SSHParseBanner() function in app-layer-ssh.c. The function fails to validate buffer length before parsing SSH banners, allowing a malformed SSH banner to cause reads beyond allocated memory boundaries.
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= 8.0= 4.0.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 Suricata versionRun 'suricata --version' or check the package manager (dpkg -l suricata, rpm -qi suricata)Affected if Version is exactly 4.0.4 (or an unpatched version within the 4.0.x series before fix)
-
Verify SSH protocol parser is enabledInspect suricata.yaml configuration file for 'app-layer.protocols.ssh.enabled: true' or check if SSH parser is loaded in the configAffected if SSH protocol parsing is enabled in the Suricata configuration
-
Confirm SSH traffic or rules are in useCheck if there are SSH-related rules loaded (grep -r 'ssh' in rules directory) or if Suricata is logging SSH transaction dataAffected if Suricata has SSH rules loaded or is actively parsing SSH traffic
-
Check for SSH banner loggingLook for eve.json or ssh.log outputs that contain SSH banner data from parsed sessionsAffected if Suricata is logging SSH banner information from parsed sessions
You are affected if Suricata version 4.0.4 is installed AND SSH protocol parsing is enabled and actively processing SSH traffic, allowing malformed SSH banners to trigger the buffer over-read.
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 dataUpdate Suricata to a version containing the fix for this vulnerability, or implement input validation to reject SSH banners that exceed expected length bounds before reaching the parsing function.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10242 — 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-2018-10242 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