iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2002-2052
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 · uneditedCisco 2611 router running IOS 12.1(6.5), possibly an interim release, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via port scans such as (1) scanning all ports on a single host and (2) scanning a network of hosts for a single open port through the router. NOTE: the vendor could not reproduce this issue, saying that the original reporter was using an interim release of the software.
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 · low confidenceUnverified denial of service vulnerability in Cisco 2611 router running IOS 12.1(6.5) where port scanning (both full port scans on a single host and single-port scans across multiple hosts through the router) allegedly causes the router to become unresponsive. Cisco could not reproduce the issue and noted the original reporter was using an interim (non-release) software version.
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
iOSOperating system
= 12.1\(6.5\)CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the router modelRun 'show version' or 'show hardware' command and look for '2611' in the outputAffected if Device is not a Cisco 2611 router (this CVE does not apply)
-
Determine the IOS versionRun 'show version' command and locate the version number in the output (e.g., 'Version 12.1(6.5)')Affected if IOS version is not exactly 12.1(6.5)
-
Verify the IOS train typeFrom 'show version' output, check if the version is an interim/release candidate (typically indicated by notation like '12.1(6.5)' with no extended support statement)Affected if Running a stable production release rather than the interim 12.1(6.5) version
Only affected if the specific device is a Cisco 2611 router running exactly the interim IOS version 12.1(6.5), which Cisco could not reproduce and is not a production release.
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 dataSince the vendor could not reproduce this issue and it involves an interim release, upgrade to a stable, supported IOS release if applicable. For legacy hardware like the Cisco 2611 (EOL), strongly consider network modernization to current-generation equipment.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-2052 — 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-2002-2052 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