TinydtlsApplication · Contiki Ng

CVE-2021-42146

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-01-24
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue was discovered in Contiki-NG tinyDTLS through master branch 53a0d97. DTLS servers allow remote attackers to reuse the same epoch number within two times the TCP maximum segment lifetime, which is prohibited in RFC6347. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive application (data of connected clients).

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 confidence

In Contiki-NG tinyDTLS, DTLS servers improperly reuse the same epoch number within two times the TCP maximum segment lifetime, violating RFC6347. This epoch reuse vulnerability allows remote attackers to potentially decrypt and obtain sensitive application data from connected clients by leveraging the predictable epoch values.

MitigationUpdate to a patched version of tinyDTLS that properly tracks and prevents epoch number reuse within the RFC6347 mandated timeframe. If no patch is available, implement proper epoch state management in the DTLS implementation.

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
TinydtlsApplication
Affected:= 2018-08-30

CVSS 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
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the tinyDTLS version in use
    Locate the Contiki-NG tinyDTLS source code or library binary and check its version metadata (git log date, version file, or library build timestamp). The affected version is dated 2018-08-30.
    Affected if The installed tinyDTLS version matches the 2018-08-30 release date.
  2. Confirm DTLS server functionality is enabled
    Examine the build configuration (Makefile, proj.conf, or equivalent) for the presence of DTLS server compile flags such as DTLS_SERVER=1, WITH_DTLS, or the inclusion of dtls-server.c.
    Affected if DTLS server support is compiled into the firmware or application.
  3. Verify the epoch counter implementation
    Inspect the tinyDTLS source code for the epoch handling logic, specifically the epoch variable initialization and increment logic in the DTLS handshake or record layer code.
    Affected if The code shows epoch is not uniquely incremented per handshake or the epoch counter resets without proper randomization within the RFC6347 timeframe.
  4. Capture and analyze DTLS network traffic
    Use a network sniffer (such as tcpdump or Wireshark) to capture DTLS traffic between the server and clients. Examine the DTLS record headers to observe the epoch field values across multiple connections or over time.
    Affected if The same epoch value appears in multiple DTLS records within a short time window (less than 2x TCP MSL).

A user is affected if they are running the 2018-08-30 release of Contiki-NG tinyDTLS with DTLS server functionality enabled, and the implementation exhibits epoch value reuse in network traffic.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update to a patched version of tinyDTLS that properly tracks and prevents epoch number reuse within the RFC6347 mandated timeframe. If no patch is available, implement proper epoch state management in the DTLS implementation.

Fix this in Tinydtls Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $2,970
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-42146 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-42146 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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