CVE-2020-17444
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 routine for processing the next header field (and deducing whether the IPv6 extension headers are valid) doesn't check whether the header extension length field would overflow. Therefore, if it wraps around to zero, iterating through the extension headers will not increment the current data pointer. This leads to an infinite loop and Denial-of-Service in pico_ipv6_check_headers_sequence() in pico_ipv6.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 confidenceIn picoTCP 1.7.0, the pico_ipv6_check_headers_sequence() function in pico_ipv6.c lacks proper validation of the IPv6 extension header length field. When the extension length wraps around to zero, the data pointer is not incremented during iteration, causing an infinite loop and resulting in a Denial-of-Service condition.
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 useSearch for picoTCP library files or header files in the system, such as checking for files named pico_ipv6.c or pico_tcp.h in the codebase or linked libraries.Affected if picoTCP library is present in the environment
-
Determine picoTCP versionCheck the version of the installed picoTCP library by examining version headers, build metadata, or the library file version information.Affected if The version is 1.7.0 or any version lower than 1.7.0
-
Verify IPv6 support is enabledCheck the picoTCP configuration or build settings for IPv6 support (look for CONFIG_IPV6 or similar IPv6-related compile-time flags).Affected if IPv6 support is compiled into the firmware or application
-
Confirm IPv6 is actively usedInspect the runtime configuration or network setup to determine if IPv6 is actually enabled and processing IPv6 packets.Affected if IPv6 packet processing is active or configurable in the environment
The environment is affected if it uses picoTCP version 1.7.0 or lower with IPv6 support enabled and IPv6 packet processing active.
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 dataImplement bounds checking on the IPv6 extension header length field to ensure it does not overflow or wrap around to zero, and ensure the data pointer is always incremented correctly during extension header processing.
- 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-2020-17444 — 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-2020-17444 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