CVE-2023-30570
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 · uneditedpluto in Libreswan before 4.11 allows a denial of service (responder SPI mishandling and daemon crash) via unauthenticated IKEv1 Aggressive Mode packets. The earliest affected version is 3.28.
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 confidenceThe pluto daemon in Libreswan before version 4.11 contains a vulnerability in IKEv1 Aggressive Mode handling where the responder SPI (Security Parameter Index) is mishandled. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send specially crafted IKEv1 Aggressive Mode packets to cause the daemon to crash, resulting in denial of service. The issue affects versions 3.28 through 4.10.
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>= 3.28, <= 4.10CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Libreswan versionRun 'ipsec --version' or 'ipsec --v2version' to display the Libreswan version numberAffected if Version is 3.28 through 4.10 (inclusive)
-
Verify pluto daemon is runningRun 'ipsec status' or check process list with 'ps aux | grep pluto' to confirm the pluto daemon is activeAffected if The pluto daemon is running and serving IKE connections
-
Confirm IKEv1 Aggressive Mode is enabledReview ipsec.conf for 'aggrmode=yes' in any connection definition, or check with 'ipsec status | grep -i aggressive'Affected if IKEv1 Aggressive Mode (aggrmode) is configured and enabled for any connection
You are affected if running Libreswan version 3.28 through 4.10 with the pluto daemon active and IKEv1 Aggressive Mode enabled for any connection.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to Libreswan 4.11 or later to patch the vulnerability. As a temporary workaround, consider blocking IKEv1 Aggressive Mode traffic at the network perimeter if immediate upgrading is not feasible.
Libreswan 4.11
- 1. Check current Libreswan version: ipsec --version
- 2. Backup current configuration: cp -r /etc/ipsec.d /etc/ipsec.d.backup and cp /etc/ipsec.conf /etc/ipsec.conf.backup
- 3. Obtain Libreswan 4.11 from official source (libreswan.org) or your distribution's package repository
- 4. Install the new version using your package manager (e.g., yum update libreswan or apt install libreswan)
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful: ipsec --version
- 6. Restart the IPsec service: systemctl restart ipsec (or service ipsec restart)
- 7. Test VPN connectivity to confirm normal operation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-30570 — 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-2023-30570 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