CVE-2020-13985
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 through 3.0. A memory corruption vulnerability exists in the uIP TCP/IP stack component when handling RPL extension headers of IPv6 network packets in rpl_remove_header in net/rpl/rpl-ext-header.c.
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 confidenceMemory corruption vulnerability in Contiki's uIP TCP/IP stack when handling RPL extension headers in IPv6 packets. The rpl_remove_header function in net/rpl/rpl-ext-header.c fails to properly validate or process RPL extension headers, leading to memory corruption that could allow remote network-based attacks.
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<= 3.0CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Confirm Contiki OS is in useInspect the firmware, source tree, or build system for Contiki OS identifiers such as contiki.h headers, Contiki makefiles, or the presence of the contiki directory structureAffected if Contiki OS is not present - the target is not affected by this specific vulnerability
-
Determine Contiki versionCheck version information in Contiki Makefile, version.h, or release notes files within the Contiki installationAffected if The installed version is 3.0 or any version lower than 3.0
-
Verify RPL routing is enabledExamine the Contiki configuration (contiki-conf.h, project-conf.h, or build Makefiles) for RPL compilation flags such as RPL_CONF_WITH_DAO, UIP_CONF_RPL, or NETSTACK_CONF_RPL set to enabled valuesAffected if RPL routing protocol is compiled into the firmware or configuration has RPL enabled
-
Confirm IPv6 networking is activeReview network stack configuration for UIP_CONF_IPV6 or NETSTACK_CONF_NETWORK set to IPv6 modeAffected if IPv6 networking is enabled - RPL is an IPv6 routing protocol and the vulnerability triggers when processing IPv6 RPL packets
-
Locate the vulnerable moduleSearch for the file net/rpl/rpl-ext-header.c in the Contiki source tree and verify the rpl_remove_header function is presentAffected if The RPL extension header processing code exists in the build
The environment is affected if Contiki OS version 3.0 or lower is in use with both RPL routing and IPv6 networking enabled, allowing untrusted IPv6 RPL traffic to reach the device.
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 to a patched version of Contiki that fixes the RPL extension header handling in rpl_remove_header. If no patch available, consider disabling RPL routing or implementing network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted IPv6 RPL traffic.
- 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-2020-13985 — 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-2020-13985 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