Pix FirewallApplication · Cisco
CVE-2002-0954
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe encryption algorithms for enable and passwd commands on Cisco PIX Firewall can be executed quickly due to a limited number of rounds, which make it easier for an attacker to decrypt the passwords using brute force techniques.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Cisco PIX Firewall uses a weak encryption algorithm for the enable and passwd commands with an insufficient number of cryptographic rounds, making password decryption via brute force computationally feasible for attackers.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Pix FirewallApplication
all versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if Cisco PIX Firewall is in your environmentReview network device inventory or log into the device and check the model using 'show version' command - look for 'PIX' in the device identificationAffected if The device is a Cisco PIX Firewall (any version)
-
Check for local enable password configurationExamine the running configuration or startup configuration file for the 'enable password' command. This command stores the enable password in encrypted form in the config.Affected if The command 'enable password <encrypted>' appears in the configuration
-
Check for local user account passwordsExamine the configuration for the 'passwd' command which sets the login password for the PIX. Also check for 'username' commands with encrypted passwords.Affected if The 'passwd' command or 'username' entries with encrypted passwords exist in the configuration
-
Verify the encryption is the weak reversible typeExamine the encrypted password strings in the configuration. The weak encryption produces a specific pattern in the stored password (typically starts with characters that indicate the weak DES-based encryption used prior to the fix).Affected if Local passwords are stored in the configuration using the weak encryption method (any encrypted password string present)
If you operate any Cisco PIX Firewall with local enable or login passwords configured in the configuration, you are affected by this vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataOrganizations should upgrade to Cisco-provided patches addressing this weakness, implement strong network access controls to limit exposure, and consider using external authentication (RADIUS/TACACS+) rather than local passwords until the fix is applied.
Fix this in Pix Firewall
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0954 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2002-0954 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data