Asa 5500Hardware / appliance · Cisco
CVE-2010-0568
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 Cisco ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security Appliance 7.0 before 7.0(8.10), 7.2 before 7.2(4.45), 8.0 before 8.0(5.7), 8.1 before 8.1(2.40), and 8.2 before 8.2(2.1); and Cisco PIX 500 Series Security Appliance; allows remote attackers to bypass NTLMv1 authentication via a crafted username, aka Bug ID CSCte21953.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in Cisco ASA 5500 Series and PIX 500 Series Security Appliances allows remote attackers to bypass NTLMv1 authentication by sending a crafted username. Successful exploitation grants unauthorized access to protected resources 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
Asa 5500Hardware / appliance
= 7.1= 7.2= 8.0= 8.1= 8.2
Pix 500Hardware / appliance
all 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/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 device modelCheck if the device is a Cisco ASA 5500 Series or PIX 500 Series Security Appliance using 'show version' or 'show hardware' command.Affected if Device is not an ASA 5500 or PIX 500 series.
-
Check installed software versionRun 'show version' on the device and locate the software version number. Compare against affected versions: ASA 7.1, 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 or PIX all versions.Affected if Installed version matches 7.1, 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 for ASA, or any version for PIX 500.
-
Verify NTLMv1 authentication is enabledCheck the authentication configuration using 'show run all authentication' or 'show aaa authentication' commands. Look for NTLM or NTLMv1 specifically configured.Affected if NTLMv1 authentication is enabled as the AAA authentication method.
-
Check authentication server configurationExamine the AAA server group configuration with 'show run | include aaa' to determine if the device is using NTLM authentication against an Active Directory or other Windows domain controller.Affected if Device is configured to authenticate against Windows domain controllers using NTLM.
The environment is affected if the device is an ASA 5500 or PIX 500 running an affected software version AND NTLMv1 authentication is enabled as the authentication mechanism.
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 ASA software to versions 7.0(8.10), 7.2(4.45), 8.0(5.7), 8.1(2.40), 8.2(2.1) or later, or disable NTLMv1 authentication and migrate to stronger authentication mechanisms such as NTLMv2 or Kerberos.
Fix this in Asa 5500
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0568 — 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-2010-0568 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