iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2014-7992
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 · uneditedThe DLSw implementation in Cisco IOS does not initialize packet buffers, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive credential information from process memory via a session on TCP port 2067, aka Bug ID CSCur14014.
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 confidenceThe DLSw (Data Link Switching) protocol implementation in Cisco IOS fails to initialize packet buffers before use, causing sensitive residual data from process memory to be transmitted to remote attackers who connect to TCP port 2067. This allows disclosure of credentials and other sensitive information residing in memory.
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
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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Verify DLSw protocol is enabledRun 'show dlsw' or 'show running-config | include dlsw' to check if DLSw is configured and active on the deviceAffected if DLSw is enabled or configured on the device (any version of Cisco IOS is affected if DLSw is running)
-
Confirm DLSw TCP listener is activeRun 'show tcp brief' or 'show listeners' to check if the device is listening on TCP port 2067Affected if The device has an open listener on TCP port 2067 for DLSw connections
-
Check DLSw peer configurationRun 'show dlsw peers' or 'show dlsw capabilities' to enumerate configured DLSw peers and their statusAffected if DLSw peers are configured and the peer connection is active, indicating DLSw traffic can flow
-
Inspect interface ACLs for port 2067Run 'show access-lists' and review interface configurations to determine if TCP port 2067 is explicitly permitted or blockedAffected if No ACL is applied to restrict access to TCP port 2067, allowing remote attackers to connect
-
Verify DLSw buffer initialization settingCheck DLSw configuration for any buffer-related settings using 'show running-config | include dlsw' - note: this is a code-level flaw so no specific config toggle exists to mitigate itAffected if DLSw is enabled (the vulnerability is inherent to all IOS versions when DLSw is active)
The environment is affected if DLSw is enabled on the Cisco IOS device and TCP port 2067 is accessible to untrusted remote attackers, regardless of IOS version since all versions contain the flaw when DLSw runs.
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 dataDisable DLSw if not required in the environment, or restrict access to TCP port 2067 using ingress ACLs to prevent unauthorized remote connections.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7992 — 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-2014-7992 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