iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2010-2827
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 IOS 15.1(2)T allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption and TCP outage) via spoofed TCP packets, related to embryonic TCP connections that remain in the SYN_RCVD or SYN_SENT state, aka Bug ID CSCti18193.
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 IOS 15.1(2)T allows remote attackers to cause denial of service by sending spoofed TCP packets that create embryonic TCP connections stuck in SYN_RCVD or SYN_SENT state. These incomplete connections consume device resources (memory and connection tracking entries) until the device can no longer accept legitimate TCP connections, resulting in TCP outage.
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
iOSOperating system
= 15.1\(2\)tCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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 installed Cisco IOS versionExecute 'show version' on the device CLI and locate the version string in the outputAffected if The version displayed is exactly 15.1(2)T (no other versions are listed as affected)
-
Verify if TCP Intercept feature is enabledExecute 'show tcp intercept connections' or 'show tcp intercept statistics' to see if TCP Intercept is activeAffected if TCP Intercept is NOT enabled and the IOS version is 15.1(2)T
-
Check for SYN cookies protectionExecute 'show ip tcp header-compression' or check for any SYN cookie configuration under the interface or global TCP settingsAffected if SYN cookies are NOT enabled and the IOS version is 15.1(2)T
-
Inspect for embryonic connection accumulationExecute 'show tcp brief' or 'show connections' and look for connections in SYN_RCVD or SYN_SENT state with high countsAffected if A large number of connections are stuck in SYN_RCVD or SYN_SENT state indicating resource exhaustion
-
Confirm if ingress filtering is configuredCheck for ACLs applied to ingress interfaces or verify uRPF (Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding) is enabled using 'show ip interface'Affected if No ingress filtering (ACLs or uRPF) is configured and the IOS version is 15.1(2)T
A device is affected if it runs exactly Cisco IOS version 15.1(2)T and does NOT have TCP Intercept, SYN cookies, or ingress filtering enabled to block spoofed TCP packets.
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 dataEnable TCP Intercept feature or SYN cookies on affected IOS devices to inspect and rate-limit embryonic connections, and implement ingress filtering to block spoofed IP traffic at network boundaries.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2827 — 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-2010-2827 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