iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2005-1058
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 IOS 12.2T, 12.3 and 12.3T, when processing an ISAKMP profile that specifies XAUTH authentication after Phase 1 negotiation, may not process certain attributes in the ISAKMP profile that specifies XAUTH, which allows remote attackers to bypass XAUTH and move to Phase 2 negotiations.
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 · moderate confidenceIn Cisco IOS 12.2T, 12.3, and 12.3T, when an ISAKMP profile is configured to use XAUTH authentication after Phase 1 negotiation, the IOS fails to properly process certain XAUTH-related attributes in the ISAKMP profile. This allows remote attackers to bypass the XAUTH step entirely and proceed directly to Phase 2 (IPSec) negotiations, effectively authenticating without valid credentials.
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
= 12.2t= 12.3= 12.3tCVSS 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.
-
Check the Cisco IOS versionRun 'show version' on the IOS device and examine the version string. Look for versions matching 12.2T, 12.3, or 12.3T family.Affected if The IOS version is 12.2(T), 12.3, or 12.3(T)
-
Identify ISAKMP profiles configured on the deviceRun 'show run | include isakmp profile' or 'show crypto isakmp profile' to list all configured ISAKMP profiles.Affected if Any ISAKMP profile exists on the device
-
Verify if XAUTH is configured within ISAKMP profilesRun 'show run | include xauth' or examine the ISAKMP profile configuration with 'show crypto isakmp profile <name>' and look for xauth authorization directives.Affected if An ISAKMP profile contains XAUTH authentication/authorization configuration
-
Check the ISAKMP profile authentication methodExamine the ISAKMP profile configuration for authentication commands and verify whether it uses XAUTH after Phase 1 negotiation. Use 'show running-config | include isakmp' and review the profile details.Affected if The ISAKMP profile is configured to use XAUTH authentication following Phase 1 negotiation
The device is affected if it runs Cisco IOS 12.2(T), 12.3, or 12.3(T) and has an ISAKMP profile configured that relies on XAUTH authentication after Phase 1 negotiation, allowing potential bypass of credential validation.
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 dataUpgrade Cisco IOS to a version that addresses this vulnerability. Review ISAKMP profiles to ensure XAUTH is properly configured and consider additional access controls on VPN gateways until the patch is applied.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1058 — 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-2005-1058 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