CVE-2018-0346
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in the Zero Touch Provisioning service of the Cisco SD-WAN Solution could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incorrect bounds checks for certain values in packets that are sent to the Zero Touch Provisioning service of the affected software. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious packets to the affected software for processing. When the software processes the packets, a buffer overflow condition could occur and cause an affected device to reload. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a temporary DoS condition while the device reloads. This vulnerability can be exploited only by traffic that is destined for an affected device. It cannot be exploited by traffic that is transiting a device. This vulnerability affects the following Cisco products if they are running a release of the Cisco SD-WAN Solution prior to Release 18.3.0: vBond Orchestrator Software, vManage Network Management Software, vSmart Controller Software. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvi69914.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) service of Cisco SD-WAN Solution due to insufficient bounds checking on packet values. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send malicious packets to affected devices (vBond Orchestrator, vManage, vSmart Controller) causing a buffer overflow that forces the device to reload, resulting in denial of service. Only traffic destined for the device is exploitable, not transit traffic.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versions< 18.3.0< 18.3.0< 18.3.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 Cisco SD-WAN device typeDetermine if the device is a vBond Orchestrator, vManage, vSmart Controller, vEdge Plus, vEdge Pro, or vEdge 100 series device using the device CLI or management interfaceAffected if The device is any of these product types listed in the affected products
-
Check the installed software versionUse the device command line or vManage interface to retrieve the firmware/software version. Compare it against the affected version range: vEdge 100/100b/100m devices are affected if version is below 18.3.0; all other listed products are affected at all versionsAffected if The version is below 18.3.0 for vEdge 100 series, or the device is any vBond, vManage, vSmart, vEdge Plus, or vEdge Pro at any version
-
Verify if ZTP service is enabledCheck the device configuration for Zero Touch Provisioning service status using the appropriate CLI command or vManage interfaceAffected if ZTP is enabled on the device - the vulnerability exists in the ZTP service itself
-
Determine network exposure of ZTP serviceIdentify the port used for ZTP and check if it is accessible from untrusted network segments. Review ACLs or firewall rules protecting the deviceAffected if The ZTP service port is reachable from untrusted or external network sources - only traffic destined for the device is exploitable, not transit traffic
The device is affected if it is any of the listed Cisco SD-WAN products, runs a vulnerable version (or any version for vBond/vManage/vSmart/vEdge Plus/Pro), has ZTP enabled, and the ZTP port is accessible from untrusted networks.
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 data18.3.0
Upgrade to Cisco SD-WAN Release 18.3.0 or later per Cisco Bug CSCvi69914. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement network isolation or ACLs to restrict access to the ZTP service port from untrusted sources.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-0346 — 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-2018-0346 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