CVE-2022-3029
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 · uneditedIn NLnet Labs Routinator 0.9.0 up to and including 0.11.2, due to a mistake in error handling, data in RRDP snapshot and delta files that isn’t correctly base 64 encoded is treated as a fatal error and causes Routinator to exit. Worst case impact of this vulnerability is denial of service for the RPKI data that Routinator provides to routers. This may stop your network from validating route origins based on RPKI data. This vulnerability does not allow an attacker to manipulate RPKI data.
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 NLnet Labs Routinator 0.9.0-0.11.2, incorrectly base64-encoded data in RRDP (RPKI Repository Delta Protocol) snapshot and delta files triggers a fatal error that causes the application to exit, resulting in denial of service for RPKI validation services.
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>= 0.9.0, <= 0.11.2CVSS 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.
-
Verify Routinator is installedRun 'routinator --version' or check your package manager for the installed routinator packageAffected if If routinator is not installed, this CVE does not apply
-
Determine the installed Routinator versionRun 'routinator --version' and note the version number in the output (format is typically X.Y.Z)Affected if If the version is 0.9.0, 0.9.1, 0.10.0, 0.10.1, 0.10.2, 0.11.0, 0.11.1, or 0.11.2, the installation is within the affected range
-
Confirm RRDP is enabledCheck the Routinator configuration file (typically at /etc/routinator/routinator.conf) or run 'routinator --config' to see if the 'rrdp' option is set to enabled, or check if RRDP is listed in your validation repositoriesAffected if If RRDP is disabled and you only use rsync for RPKI updates, the vulnerable code path is not triggered
-
Identify if RRDP delta/snapshot files are processedReview Routinator logs for RRDP-related entries, or check if your installation is configured to fetch from RRDP repositories (default port 8245) as part of RPKI validationAffected if If your Routinator instance processes RRDP updates (snapshot or delta files), it is potentially affected when malformed base64 data is encountered
You are affected if Routinator version is between 0.9.0 and 0.11.2 inclusive, RRDP is enabled, and your installation processes RRDP repository delta or snapshot files
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 dataUpgrade Routinator to version 0.12.0 or later, which contains the corrected error handling for malformed base64 data in RRDP files.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-3029 — 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-2022-3029 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