Skip to content
Noroxi
CVE-2016-10142· NVD / CVE Program· CNA mitre

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages.

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.

HighCVSS 8.6 · v3.0—No exploit Fix available
Published
Jan 14, 2017
Updated
Jun 16, 2026
EPSS
2.8% · 86th percentile
Follow this CVE

Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.

Report tools

JSON

Action score

35

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS
34 / 40 · 8.6 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
1 / 30 · 2.8%

Affected systems

VendorProduct
ietfipv6

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

  • ietf ipv6all versions

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

EcosystemPackageAffected rangeFix
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernelbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-abi-whitelistsbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debugbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debug-debuginfobefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debug-develbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debuginfobefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debuginfo-common-i686before 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-debuginfo-common-x86_64before 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-develbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-docbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-firmwarebefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientkernel-headersbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientperfbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientperf-debuginfobefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientpython-perfbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientpython-perf-debuginfobefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-bootwrapperbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-debuginfo-common-ppc64before 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-debuginfo-common-s390xbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-kdumpbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-kdump-debuginfobefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6
Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::serverkernel-kdump-develbefore 0:2.6.32-696.el60:2.6.32-696.el6

Same product

ietf: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

  • CVE-2025-23019IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling (RFC 4213) allows an attacker to spoof and route traffic via an exposed network interface.
    26Monitor
  • CVE-2025-23018IPv4-in-IPv6 and IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling (RFC 2473) do not require the validation or verification of the source of a network packet, allowing
    26Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

Product / packageFixed versionSource
red hat:kernel0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-abi-whitelists0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debug0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debug-debuginfo0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debug-devel0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debuginfo0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debuginfo-common-i6860:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-debuginfo-common-x86_640:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:kernel-devel0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:perf-debuginfo0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:python-perf0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)
red hat:python-perf-debuginfo0:2.6.32-696.el6 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::clientPackage registry (OSV)

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

EPSS, last 120 days

FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

No commit or PR link among the references.

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

No credits in the CNA record.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

No nightly-computed relations.

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
  • No account or password is required.
  • No user action is required.
  • No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
none
Integrity
none
Availability
high · the service can be disrupted

Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality impact
None
Integrity impact
None
Availability impact
High

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-17 · DEPRECATED: Code

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H

nvd-primary

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.

Noroxi analysis

No Noroxi analysis for this record yet

We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.

We use this product, ask for help

Change log

  1. Fix✗ → ✓

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

All records