CVE-2020-17443
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 picoTCP 1.7.0. The code for creating an ICMPv6 echo replies doesn't check whether the ICMPv6 echo request packet's size is shorter than 8 bytes. If the size of the incoming ICMPv6 request packet is shorter than this, the operation that calculates the size of the ICMPv6 echo replies has an integer wrap around, leading to memory corruption and, eventually, Denial-of-Service in pico_icmp6_send_echoreply_not_frag in pico_icmp6.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 · high confidencepicoTCP 1.7.0 lacks a bounds check in the ICMPv6 echo reply function (pico_icmp6_send_echoreply_not_frag). When an ICMPv6 echo request packet shorter than 8 bytes is received, the size calculation integer arithmetic wraps around, causing memory corruption that leads to 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<= 1.7.0CVSS 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 if picoTCP is in useInventory software components, firmware, or IoT devices to determine if the picoTCP TCP/IP stack is present in the environment. This may require examining firmware binaries, library dependencies, or embedded system documentation.Affected if picoTCP is found in the environment and is used for network stack functionality.
-
Determine the picoTCP versionLocate and inspect the version of the picoTCP library or firmware containing it. Check library files, firmware metadata, or version strings within compiled binaries. Compare against the affected range: versions <= 1.7.0.Affected if The installed or embedded picoTCP version is 1.7.0 or lower.
-
Verify ICMPv6 echo reply feature is enabledExamine the picoTCP configuration or build settings to determine whether the ICMPv6 echo reply function (pico_icmp6_send_echoreply_not_frag) is compiled and active. Check for ICMPv6 module inclusion in the build configuration.Affected if ICMPv6 echo reply functionality is enabled in the picoTCP configuration.
-
Confirm the system processes external ICMPv6 trafficReview network exposure and firewall rules to determine whether the device can receive ICMPv6 echo request packets from external sources. Check if the network interface accepts and processes ICMPv6 traffic.Affected if The system accepts and processes incoming ICMPv6 echo request packets on network interfaces.
The environment is affected if picoTCP version 1.7.0 or lower is in use with ICMPv6 echo reply functionality enabled and the system processes incoming ICMPv6 echo request packets.
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 dataAdd validation to ensure incoming ICMPv6 echo request packets are at least 8 bytes before processing, and fix the size calculation to prevent integer wraparound.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-17443 — 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-2020-17443 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