CVE-2011-4023
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 · uneditedMemory leak in libcmd in Cisco NX-OS 5.0 on Nexus switches allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via SNMP requests, aka Bug ID CSCtr65682.
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 · moderate confidenceMemory leak in the libcmd component of Cisco NX-OS 5.0 on Nexus switches. Remote authenticated users can trigger the leak by sending specially crafted SNMP requests, causing progressive memory consumption that leads to denial of service through system exhaustion.
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= 5.0= 5.0\(2\)= 5.0\(2\)n1\(1\)= 5.0\(2\)n2\(1\)= 5.0\(2\)n2\(1a\)= 5.0\(2a\)= 5.0\(3\)= 5.0\(3\)n1\(1\)= 5.0\(3\)n1\(1a\)= 5.0\(3\)n1\(1b\)= 5.0\(3\)n1\(1c\)= 5.0\(3\)n2\(1\)all versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- 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 NX-OS versionRun 'show version' or check the system banner to determine the exact NX-OS version installed on the switchAffected if The version matches any of: 5.0, 5.0(2), 5.0(2)n1(1), 5.0(2)n2(1), 5.0(2)n2(1a), 5.0(2a), 5.0(3), 5.0(3)n1(1), 5.0(3)n1(1a), 5.0(3)n1(1b), 5.0(3)n1(1c), or 5.0(3)n2(1)
-
Identify the switch modelRun 'show version' or 'show inventory' to identify the exact model number of the Nexus switchAffected if The model is any of: Nexus 2148t, 2224tp, 2232pp, 2232tm, 2248tp E, 2248tp, 5010p, or any FEX switch (these are affected at all versions)
-
Verify SNMP configuration statusRun 'show snmp' or check the SNMP configuration to determine if SNMP is enabled on the deviceAffected if SNMP is enabled and accessible from network locations where remote authenticated users can send requests
-
Check current system memory usageRun 'show system resources' or 'show memory' to view current memory consumptionAffected if Memory usage is abnormally high or progressively increasing without an obvious cause
-
Review SNMP access controlsRun 'show snmp community' and check SNMP ACLs to determine who can send SNMP requests to the deviceAffected if SNMP is accessible to untrusted or overly broad network ranges
The environment is affected if the device runs NX-OS version 5.0.x (as listed) or is one of the specific Nexus/FEX models, and SNMP is enabled and reachable by authenticated users.
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 the Cisco patch for Bug ID CSCtr65682, which typically involves updating to a fixed NX-OS version. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict SNMP access to trusted management networks and monitor memory usage closely.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4023 — 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-2011-4023 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