Ros CommApplication · Ros

CVE-2019-13465

HIGH · 8.6 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-12-30
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 1.14.3 or later.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue was discovered in the ROS communications-related packages (aka ros_comm or ros-melodic-ros-comm) through 1.14.3. ROS_ASSERT_MSG only works when ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is defined. This leads to a problem in the remove() function in clients/roscpp/src/libros/spinner.cpp. When ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is not defined, the iterator loop will run out of the scope of the array, and cause denial of service for other components (that depend on the communication-related functions of this package). NOTE: The reporter of this issue now believes it was a false alarm.

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 confidence

A bounds-checking vulnerability exists in the remove() function in clients/roscpp/src/libros/spinner.cpp where the iterator loop can exceed array bounds when ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is not defined. ROS_ASSERT_MSG macros only execute when ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is defined, causing the out-of-scope iterator access leading to denial of service for components relying on ROS communication functions.

MitigationAdd proper bounds checking in the remove() function that does not depend on ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED, or ensure ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is properly defined during compilation to enable assertion guards.

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
Ros CommApplication
Affected:<= 1.14.3

CVSS 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
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed ROS version
    Run 'rosversion -a' or check the installed ros-comm package version using the system's package manager (e.g., 'dpkg -l | grep ros-comm' on Debian/Ubuntu, 'rpm -qa | grep ros-comm' on RHEL/CentOS)
    Affected if The installed ros-comm or roscpp package version is 1.14.3 or lower
  2. Locate spinner.cpp source file
    Find the source file at clients/roscpp/src/libros/spinner.cpp within the ROS installation or source tree
    Affected if The file exists in the installed ROS codebase and contains a remove() function
  3. Check if ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is defined in build
    Inspect the build configuration or preprocessor defines used when compiling roscpp. Look for ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED in the CMake configuration, build flags, or generated headers
    Affected if ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is NOT defined in the compiled roscpp library, meaning assertion guards are disabled in the remove() function
  4. Examine remove() function bounds checking
    Open spinner.cpp and locate the remove() function. Check whether the iterator bounds checking logic is wrapped inside ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED conditional blocks
    Affected if The remove() function relies on ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED to prevent iterator out-of-bounds access, and this macro is not defined during compilation

A system is affected if it runs ros-comm version 1.14.3 or lower AND was compiled without ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED defined, leaving the remove() function vulnerable to out-of-bounds iterator access.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 1.14.3
Interim mitigation

Add proper bounds checking in the remove() function that does not depend on ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED, or ensure ROS_ASSERT_ENABLED is properly defined during compilation to enable assertion guards.

Fix this in Ros Comm Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,080
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13465 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-13465 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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