CVE-2021-29999
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 Wind River VxWorks through 6.8. There is a possible stack overflow in dhcp server.
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 confidenceA stack overflow vulnerability exists in the DHCP server component of Wind River VxWorks (through version 6.8). The vulnerability allows potential remote code execution due to insufficient bounds checking when processing DHCP requests, leading to stack memory corruption.
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<= 6.8CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 the VxWorks versionCheck the VxWorks installation or system information to determine the exact version number. This may be found in system documentation, boot parameters, or by querying the VxWorks kernel if you have administrative access.Affected if The installed version is VxWorks 6.8 or any earlier version (e.g., 6.7, 6.6, etc.)
-
Verify the DHCP server component is activeDetermine if the DHCP server functionality is enabled on the VxWorks device. Check the running configuration, network services, or system services that indicate DHCP server is operational.Affected if The DHCP server component is enabled and actively handling DHCP requests on the network interface
-
Confirm DHCP server is reachableVerify that the VxWorks DHCP server is accessible on the network. This may involve checking network ACLs, firewall rules, or simply confirming the device is on the network segment where it serves DHCP requests.Affected if The DHCP server is network-accessible and responding to DHCP client requests
Your environment is affected if the VxWorks version is 6.8 or earlier AND the DHCP server component is enabled and serving DHCP requests on the network.
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 the vendor-supplied patch from Wind River for VxWorks 6.8 or later. If patching is not immediately possible, isolate affected devices on network segments with restricted DHCP access and monitor for exploitation attempts.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29999 — 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-2021-29999 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