CVE-2005-2434
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 · uneditedLinksys WRT54G router uses the same private key and certificate for every router, which allows remote attackers to sniff the SSL connection and obtain sensitive information.
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 Linksys WRT54G router ships with an identical SSL private key and certificate across all manufactured units. This means any attacker who obtains the default key (widely available since 2005) can perform man-in-the-middle attacks, decrypt SSL traffic, and intercept sensitive information like administrative 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 dataall 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 modelCheck the device label or access the administrative interface to confirm the exact model numberAffected if The device is a Linksys WRT54G router of any version
-
Check if HTTPS management is enabledAccess the router web interface (typically http://192.168.1.1) and navigate to the Administration or Management section to verify if HTTPS/SSL access is enabled for remote administrationAffected if HTTPS management interface is enabled and accessible
-
Inspect the SSL certificate detailsAccess the router via HTTPS and view the certificate details (click the padlock icon in browser). Check the Common Name, Organization, or Serial Number fields against publicly documented default Linksys WRT54G certificate valuesAffected if The certificate matches the widely-known default Linksys SSL certificate that has been public since 2005
A defender is affected if they operate a Linksys WRT54G router with HTTPS management enabled, as all units ship with the same default SSL certificate first documented in 2005.
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 dataReplace affected routers with current models that support unique certificate generation, or if firmware updates are available from Linksys, apply them immediately. Avoid transmitting sensitive data over SSL on affected devices until remediated.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2434 — 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-2005-2434 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