CVE-2018-16667
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Contiki-NG through 4.1. There is a buffer over-read in lookup in os/storage/antelope/lvm.c while parsing AQL (lvm_register_variable, lvm_set_variable_value, create_intersection, create_union).
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 confidenceA buffer over-read vulnerability exists in the Antelope storage system's lookup function in os/storage/antelope/lvm.c in Contiki-NG through version 4.1. The flaw occurs during AQL (Antelope Query Language) parsing in multiple functions including lvm_register_variable, lvm_set_variable_value, create_intersection, and create_union, where insufficient bounds checking allows reading beyond allocated buffer 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<= 4.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Identify Contiki-NG versionCheck the version.h or version.c file in the Contiki-NG source tree, or check the git tag if available: git tag -l 'v*' | sort -V | tail -n1Affected if The installed Contiki-NG version is 4.1 or earlier (the vulnerable version range is <= 4.1)
-
Locate the vulnerable lvm.c fileSearch for os/storage/antelope/lvm.c in the Contiki-NG source directory: find . -path '*/os/storage/antelope/lvm.c' -type fAffected if The Antelope storage module (lvm.c) exists in the build, indicating the vulnerable code is present
-
Verify AQL parser is compiled inCheck if AQL parsing functionality is enabled in the build configuration (look for ANTELOPE or AQL related flags in project-conf.h or Makefile)Affected if The Antelope Query Language (AQL) parser is enabled in the build configuration, which activates the vulnerable parsing routines (lvm_register_variable, lvm_set_variable_value, create_intersection, create_union)
-
Check for lvm_lookup function usageGrep for lvm_lookup or related function calls in the application source code: grep -r 'lvm_lookup\|lvm_register_variable\|lvm_set_variable_value' .Affected if The application code calls any of the vulnerable lvm functions where the buffer over-read can occur during query processing
A system is affected if it runs Contiki-NG version 4.1 or earlier with the Antelope storage module and AQL parser enabled, and the application uses lvm functions for query handling.
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 dataApply the Contiki-NG security patch for CVE-2018-16667 which adds proper bounds validation in the lvm.c lookup function and related AQL parsing routines.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-16667 — 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-2018-16667 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