CVE-2008-1527
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 · uneditedZyXEL Prestige routers, including P-660, P-661, and P-662 models with firmware 3.40(PE9) and 3.40(AGD.2) through 3.40(AHQ.3), support authentication over HTTP via a hash string in the hiddenPassword field, which allows remote attackers to obtain access via a replay attack.
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 confidenceZyXEL Prestige routers (P-660, P-661, P-662) with firmware versions 3.40(PE9) and 3.40(AGD.2) through 3.40(AHQ.3) contain a vulnerability where authentication can be performed over HTTP using a hash string in the hiddenPassword field. This allows remote attackers to capture the authentication hash and replay it to gain unauthorized access to the router's administrative interface.
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= h-d1= h-d3= hw-d1= 3.40CVSS 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 the device modelAccess the router's web interface or check the device label to confirm it is a ZyXEL Prestige 660, 661, or 662 router, or determine if it runs Zynos firmwareAffected if The device is a ZyXEL Prestige 660, 661, or 662, or runs Zynos firmware
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the router's web interface and navigate to the status or firmware information page, or use the command line (telnet/SSH) and check the firmware version. Look for version numbers in the 3.40 branch such as 3.40(PE9), 3.40(AGD.2), 3.40(AHQ.3), or similar 3.40(x) releasesAffected if The firmware version is 3.40(PE9) through 3.40(AHQ.3) or any 3.40(x) variant in that range
-
Verify HTTP management is enabledIn the router's web interface, go to the management or access control settings and check if HTTP (port 80) management is enabled. This is typically found under 'Remote Management' or 'HTTP Access' settingsAffected if HTTP management is enabled and accessible
-
Check if remote HTTP access is permittedIn the router's web interface, verify the 'Remote Management' or 'WAN Access' settings to determine if HTTP management is accessible from the WAN (Internet) side, not just LANAffected if HTTP management is accessible from WAN or untrusted networks
A user is affected if they have a ZyXEL Prestige 660/661/662 router or Zynos device running firmware version 3.40(PE9) through 3.40(AHQ.3) with HTTP management enabled and accessible, particularly from remote networks.
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 available firmware updates from ZyXEL. If no update is available, restrict HTTP management access to trusted networks only, or disable remote HTTP management and use HTTPS or SNMP with proper access controls instead.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-1527 — 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-2008-1527 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