CVE-2024-43389
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 · uneditedA low privileged remote attacker can perform configuration changes of the ospf service through OSPF_INTERFACE.SIMPLE_KEY, OSPF_INTERFACE.DIGEST_KEY environment variables which can lead to a DoS.
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 vulnerability in the OSPF service allows low-privileged remote attackers to modify OSPF interface authentication keys via the OSPF_INTERFACE.SIMPLE_KEY and OSPF_INTERFACE.DIGEST_KEY environment variables. Since the service accepts configuration through environment variables without proper authorization, an attacker can manipulate routing authentication settings, causing service disruption or DoS.
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< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 device modelDetermine if the device is a Phoenix Contact TC-Mguard RS4000 or RS2000 variant. Check the device label, web UI, or command line interface for the exact model number.Affected if Device is a Tc Mguard RS4000 or RS2000 series model (4g Vzw, 4g, 4g Att, or 3g variants)
-
Check firmware versionAccess the device management interface or use the appropriate command to retrieve the installed firmware version. Compare against the affected version range.Affected if Firmware version is below 8.9.3
-
Verify OSPF service is enabledCheck the device configuration to determine if the OSPF routing protocol service is active. Look for OSPF interface settings in the device management UI or configuration files.Affected if OSPF service is enabled and configured on the device
-
Inspect OSPF configuration methodExamine whether OSPF interface authentication is configured via environment variables. Look for references to OSPF_INTERFACE.SIMPLE_KEY or OSPF_INTERFACE.DIGEST_KEY in the device configuration or runtime environment.Affected if OSPF authentication keys are being configured through environment variables (OSPF_INTERFACE.SIMPLE_KEY or OSPF_INTERFACE.DIGEST_KEY)
-
Check environment variable accessReview the process environment or configuration system to determine if the OSPF service process has accessible environment variables that control authentication keys.Affected if Environment variables controlling OSPF authentication (OSPF_INTERFACE.SIMPLE_KEY or OSPF_INTERFACE.DIGEST_KEY) can be modified by low-privileged users or remote attackers
The device is affected if it is a Tc Mguard RS4000/RS2000 series with firmware version below 8.9.3 and OSPF is enabled with authentication configured via environment variables.
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 · scoped8.9.3
Restrict environment variable manipulation for the OSPF service process and implement proper authentication/authorization for configuration changes. Replace environment variable-based configuration with secure configuration file mechanisms that require appropriate privileges to modify.
Tc Mguard RS2000/RS4000 series firmware 8.9.3 or later
- Obtain the firmware version 8.9.3 or later from the vendor's official support渠道
- Review the vendor's firmware upgrade instructions for Tc Mguard RS2000/RS4000 series devices
- Schedule a maintenance window as firmware updates may require device restart
- Backup current device configuration before performing upgrade
- Upload and install firmware version 8.9.3 or later via the device's management interface
- Verify successful installation and confirm the new firmware version
- Restore configuration if needed and verify ospf service operates normally
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-43389 — 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-2024-43389 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