Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine Link State Advertisement (LSA) recency for LSAs with MaxSequenceNumber. According to RFC 2328 section 13.1, for two instances of the same LSA, recency is determined by first comparing sequence numbers, then checksums, and finally MaxAge. In a case where the sequence numbers are the same, the LSA with the larger checksum is considered more recent, and will not be flushed from the Link State Database (LSDB). Since the RFC does not explicitly state that the values of links carried by a LSA must be the same when prematurely aging a self-originating LSA with MaxSequenceNumber, it is possible in vulnerable OSPF implementations for an attacker to craft a LSA with MaxSequenceNumber and invalid links that will result in a larger checksum and thus a 'newer' LSA that will not be flushed from the LSDB. Propagation of the crafted LSA can result in the erasure or alteration of the routing tables of routers within the routing domain, creating a denial of service condition or the re-routing of traffic on the network. CVE-2017-3224 has been reserved for Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages).
CVSS Details
- CVSS 3.1 Base Score: 8.2
- CVSS 3.0 Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H)
Covered by Rapid7
| Product | Vendor Advisory | Solution File | Added | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huawei Euleros 2_0_sp2 | — | Upgrade quagga | Dec 4, 2019 | Jul 24, 2018 |
| Huawei Euleros 2_0_sp3 | — | Upgrade quagga | Dec 18, 2019 | Jul 24, 2018 |
| Huawei Euleros 2_0_sp5 | — | Upgrade quagga | Feb 3, 2021 | Jul 24, 2018 |
| Redhat_linux | — | No solution exists | Jul 9, 2025 | Jul 24, 2018 |
| Ubuntu | — | No solution exists | Jun 26, 2025 | Jul 24, 2018 |
Prioritise with Active Threat Intelligence
With curated Threat Intelligence, you can see which vulnerabilities truly put you at risk, prioritize what matters most, and act before attackers do.
Explore Intelligence Hub