CVE-2008-2441
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 Secure ACS 3.x before 3.3(4) Build 12 patch 7, 4.0.x, 4.1.x before 4.1(4) Build 13 Patch 11, and 4.2.x before 4.2(0) Build 124 Patch 4 does not properly handle an EAP Response packet in which the value of the length field exceeds the actual packet length, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CSRadius and CSAuth service crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted RADIUS (1) EAP-Response/Identity, (2) EAP-Response/MD5, or (3) EAP-Response/TLS Message Attribute packet.
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 confidenceCisco Secure ACS contains a vulnerability in its RADIUS server component (CSRadius and CSAuth services) where it fails to properly validate the length field in EAP Response packets against the actual packet length. An authenticated remote attacker can send crafted EAP-Response/Identity, EAP-Response/MD5, or EAP-Response/TLS packets with a length field value exceeding the actual packet size, causing a denial of service (service crash) or potentially arbitrary code execution.
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 versionsall 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
- 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 Cisco Secure ACS installationCheck for the presence of Cisco Secure ACS by looking in the program directory (default locations: C:\CiscoSecure on Windows or /opt/CSM on Linux) and checking for CSRadius.exe or CSAuth.exe processes in the task manager or via 'tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq CSRadius.exe"' or 'tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq CSAuth.exe"'Affected if Either the installation directory exists or one of the CSRadius or CSAuth processes is running on the system
-
Determine the installed versionOpen the Cisco Secure ACS management console and navigate to System Administration > Product Info, or check the version information in the About screen of the ACS web interfaceAffected if The version is any version of Cisco Secure ACS or Cisco Secure Access Control Server since all versions are affected according to the CVE
-
Verify RADIUS service is enabledCheck if the CSRadius service is configured and running on the system via Windows Services console or by running 'sc query CSRadius' from command lineAffected if The CSRadius service is installed and running, exposing the vulnerable RADIUS server component
-
Confirm EAP authentication methods are configuredAccess the Cisco Secure ACS web interface and navigate to Interface Configuration > RADIUS Interfaces > [Select Interface] > EAP Properties, or check the ACS log configuration for EAP-based authentication attemptsAffected if EAP-based authentication methods (particularly EAP-Response/Identity, EAP-Response/MD5, or EAP-Response/TLS) are enabled in the RADIUS configuration
-
Check network exposure of RADIUS portsRun 'netstat -an | findstr "1645 1646"' to see if UDP ports 1645/1646 (RADIUS authentication) or ports 1812/1813 (RADIUS accounting) are listening on external interfacesAffected if The RADIUS ports are bound to non-loopback addresses and are accessible from untrusted networks
A system is likely affected if it runs any version of Cisco Secure ACS with the CSRadius or CSAuth services enabled and has RADIUS with EAP authentication methods exposed to network access.
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 patches for this vulnerability: upgrade to Cisco Secure ACS 3.3(4) Build 12 patch 7, 4.1(4) Build 13 Patch 11, or 4.2(0) Build 124 Patch 4 or later. Additionally, restrict RADIUS access to trusted authentication sources via network access controls.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-2441 — 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-2008-2441 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