WiresharkApplication
CVE-2018-7330
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 · uneditedIn Wireshark 2.4.0 to 2.4.4 and 2.2.0 to 2.2.12, epan/dissectors/packet-thread.c had an infinite loop that was addressed by using a correct integer data type.
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 confidenceWireshark's thread dissector (packet-thread.c) contains an infinite loop vulnerability caused by an incorrect integer data type. When processing specially crafted or malformed thread protocol packets, the dissector enters an infinite loop, causing Wireshark to hang or become unresponsive. The fix requires changing the integer data type to correctly handle the packet data values.
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
>= 2.2.0, <= 2.2.12>= 2.4.0, <= 2.4.4CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed Wireshark versionRun 'wireshark --version' or check Help > About Wireshark in the GUIAffected if Version is between 2.2.0 and 2.2.12 inclusive, or between 2.4.0 and 2.4.4 inclusive
-
Confirm thread dissector is presentVerify the file packet-thread.c exists in the Wireshark installation directory (typically under epan/dissectors/)Affected if The dissector file exists in the installation, meaning the vulnerable code is present
-
Check for recent capture file handlingReview any recently opened .pcap or .pcapng files that may contain thread protocol packetsAffected if Thread protocol packets from untrusted sources were parsed using the affected Wireshark version
If Wireshark version falls within 2.2.0-2.2.12 or 2.4.0-2.4.4 and the thread dissector was used to process untrusted capture files, the environment is affected.
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 Wireshark to version 2.4.5 or later (for the 2.4.x branch) or 2.2.13 or later (for the 2.2.x branch). Until upgrade, avoid opening untrusted packet capture files using the thread dissector.
Fix this in Wireshark
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-7330 — 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-2018-7330 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