CVE-2023-50927
CVE-2023-50927 — Insufficient boundary checks for DIO and DAO messages in RPL-Lite in Contiki-NG
Contiki-NG is an open-source, cross-platform operating system for Next-Generation IoT devices. An attacker can trigger out-of-bounds reads in the RPL-Lite implementation of the RPL protocol in the Contiki-NG operating system. This vulnerability is caused by insufficient control of the lengths for DIO and DAO messages, in particular when they contain RPL sub-option headers. The problem has been patched in Contiki-NG 4.9. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should manually apply the code changes in PR #2484.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
1%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
8.6
HIGH
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.6 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-125
References
2 on the record
- github.com/contiki-ng/contiki-ng/security/advisories/GHSA-9423-rgj4-wjfw
x_refsource_CONFIRM
- github.com/contiki-ng/contiki-ng/pull/2484
x_refsource_MISC
Elsewhere on this site
- contiki ngevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-125other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.