CVE-2020-13986
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. An infinite loop 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 confidenceAn infinite loop vulnerability exists in the uIP TCP/IP stack of Contiki OS (through version 3.0) in the rpl_remove_header function when parsing RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) extension headers within IPv6 packets. A specially crafted IPv6 packet with malformed RPL extension headers can trigger an infinite loop, causing denial of service.
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.
-
Identify Contiki OS installationLocate the Contiki installation directory and check for a VERSION file or version.h header that contains the Contiki version numberAffected if The installed Contiki version is 3.0 or any version prior to 3.0 (versions through 3.0 are affected)
-
Verify uIP TCP/IP stack is in useExamine the project's makefile or build configuration for references to uIP stack (common in Contiki projects) - look for UIP_CONF or uip includesAffected if The project uses the uIP TCP/IP stack, which is the default stack in Contiki OS and contains the vulnerable rpl_remove_header function
-
Confirm RPL protocol is enabledCheck the project's configuration (contiki-conf.h or project-conf.h) for RPL compilation flags such as UIP_CONF_RPL or NETSTACK_CONF_RPL set to 1Affected if RPL (UIP_CONF_RPL or NETSTACK_CONF_RPL) is compiled and enabled in the build configuration
-
Check IPv6 network functionalityVerify that IPv6 support is enabled in the configuration via UIP_CONF_IPV6 or NETSTACK_CONF_NETWORK set to nullnet/nullmac, as RPL operates over IPv6Affected if IPv6 is enabled and the device participates in IPv6 low-power network communication, allowing receipt of crafted RPL extension headers
You are affected if your Contiki OS version is 3.0 or earlier, your build includes the uIP stack with RPL protocol enabled, and your device processes incoming IPv6 packets containing RPL extension headers.
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 any available vendor patch for Contiki 3.0; if no patch exists, implement bounds checking and loop termination validation in the rpl_remove_header function to ensure the RPL extension header parsing loop exits properly.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13986 — 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-2020-13986 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