Route Switch ProcessorApplication · Cisco
CVE-2008-0537
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in the Supervisor Engine 32 (Sup32), Supervisor Engine 720 (Sup720), and Route Switch Processor 720 (RSP720) for multiple Cisco products, when using Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) VPN and OSPF sham-link, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (blocked queue, device restart, or memory leak) via unknown vectors.
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 confidenceA vulnerability in Cisco Supervisor Engine 32, Supervisor Engine 720, and RSP720 allows remote attackers to cause denial of service via malformed traffic when MPLS VPN and OSPF sham-link are configured, resulting in blocked queues, device restarts, or memory leaks.
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
Route Switch ProcessorApplication
= rsp720
Supervisor EngineApplication
= sup32= sup720CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 device hardware modelExecute 'show module' or 'show version' command to display the installed supervisor engine or route processor. Look for model identifiers: sup32, sup720, or rsp720.Affected if The device hardware is Cisco Supervisor Engine 32, Supervisor Engine 720, or RSP720.
-
Verify MPLS VPN configuration is activeExecute 'show vrf' or 'show ip vrf' to list configured VRFs. Additionally, use 'show mpls ldp neighbor' to confirm MPLS is enabled.Affected if One or more VRFs are configured and MPLS is active on the device.
-
Confirm OSPF sham-link is configuredExecute 'show ip ospf sham-link' or 'show ip ospf interface brief' to check for configured OSPF sham-links between sites.Affected if OSPF sham-links are present in the OSPF routing configuration.
-
Determine if both conditions coexistCross-reference the findings: the device must be an affected model (sup32/sup720/rsp720) AND have both MPLS VPN (VRF) AND OSPF sham-link configured simultaneously.Affected if The device is an affected model AND MPLS VPN AND OSPF sham-link are both configured, making it vulnerable to malformed traffic causing denial of service.
A device is affected if it is a Cisco Supervisor Engine 32, Supervisor Engine 720, or RSP720 with both MPLS VPN and OSPF sham-link features actively configured.
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 dataApply Cisco IOS software updates for affected supervisor engines and route processors. If patches are unavailable, consider disabling OSPF sham-links or restricting MPLS VPN adjacency to trusted interfaces.
Fix this in Route Switch Processor
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-0537 — 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-2008-0537 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