IOIoT Support Risk
CVE

CVE-2005-0066

The original design of TCP does not check that the TCP Acknowledgement number in an ICMP error message generated by an intermediate router is within the range of possible values for data that has already been acknowledged (aka "TCP acknowledgement number checking"), which makes it easier for attackers to forge ICMP error messages for specific TCP connections and cause a denial of service, as demonstrated using (1) blind connection-reset attacks with forged "Destination Unreachable" messages, (2) blind throughput-reduction attacks with forged "Source Quench" messages, or (3) blind throughput-reduction attacks with forged ICMP messages that cause the Path MTU to be reduced. NOTE: CVE-2004-0790, CVE-2004-0791, and CVE-2004-1060 have been SPLIT based on different attacks; CVE-2005-0065, CVE-2005-0066, CVE-2005-0067, and CVE-2005-0068 are related identifiers that are SPLIT based on the underlying vulnerability. While CVE normally SPLITs based on vulnerability, the attack-based identifiers exist due to the variety and number of affected implementations and solutions that address the attacks instead of the underlying vulnerabilities.

What this profile means

This public preview summarizes the normalized record without exposing paid citation paths. Use it to decide whether the device deserves a paid report, workspace review, or direct source verification.

Record typedevice
CategoryCVE
StatusNVD CVE record
Confidence90
CVECVE-2005-0066

Source coverage preview

Public pages show source names and record counts. Paid reports unlock source URLs, citation paths, and report-generation context.

Source rows checked2
Max source confidence90
Latest source observationMay 18, 2026
CitationsLocked in paid report
  • NIST NVD CVE API

Paid report value

  • Device/security signal snapshot
  • Known exploited and exploitability interpretation where available
  • Remediation and inventory-mapping checklist
  • Locked source citations and monitoring path

For records that need deeper review, use the main access flow to request source-backed report context, saved workspace review, or support before relying on the public preview.

Methodology and limits

Source-backed, but still worth verifying for high-impact use.

Security records are triage intelligence and should be validated against asset inventory, firmware versions, compensating controls, and vendor advisories.

For security teams

Prioritize known exploited and high-confidence records.

For buyers

Check support and vulnerability signals before purchase.

For MSPs

Use reports and monitors for customer device review.

Questions to ask before relying on this record

Paid reports include citation paths and report-generation context; public previews intentionally hide source URLs.

CVE-2005-0066 CVE Report | DataVerityHub