# CVE-2017-3224: Denial of service in Protocol > Attackers can craft OSPF LSAs to corrupt routing tables, causing denial of service or traffic rerouting in Quagga and downstream implementations. - **Severity:** High 8.2 (`CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Not needed - **Attackable:** Local or same network only - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** No - **Published:** 24 Jul 2018 - **Updated:** 5 Aug 2024 - **Also known as:** GHSA-63cp-f7wp-c79r, UBUNTU-CVE-2017-3224 ## What is CVE-2017-3224? CVE-2017-3224 is a high-severity denial of service vulnerability in Suse Suse Linux, published on 24 Jul 2018. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. ### Official description 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). Weakness: CWE-345 (Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity), CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value) ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2017-3224? It affects 4 products. Products: Quagga Quagga, Redhat Package Manager, Suse Opensuse, Suse Suse Linux. ## How do I fix CVE-2017-3224? No fix has been published for CVE-2017-3224 yet. Limit exposure of the affected software until one is available. ## Is CVE-2017-3224 being exploited? There is no known exploitation of CVE-2017-3224 in the wild and no public exploit code. ## Other vulnerabilities in Suse Suse Linux - [CVE-2021-44038](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2021-44038/): Privilege escalation in n/a (high 7.8) - [CVE-2017-5495](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2017-5495/): Denial of service in n/a (high 7.5) - [CVE-2011-3327](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2011-3327/): Memory corruption in n/a (high 7.5) - [CVE-2010-2948](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2010-2948/): Memory corruption in n/a (medium 6.5) - [CVE-2007-1995](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2007-1995/): Denial of service in n/a (medium 6.3) ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2017-3224 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2017-3224 is a high-severity denial of service vulnerability in Suse Suse Linux, published on 24 Jul 2018. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2017-3224 in the wild and no public exploit code. Affected product: Suse Suse Linux. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page. Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2017-3224/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2017-3224/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2017-3224 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-3224 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2017-3224 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2017-3224/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.