Nx OsOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2019-1594
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 802.1X implementation for Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incomplete input validation of Extensible Authentication Protocol over LAN (EAPOL) frames. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted EAPOL frame to an interface on the targeted device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the Layer 2 (L2) forwarding process to restart multiple times, leading to a system-level restart of the device and a DoS condition. Note: This vulnerability affects only NX-OS devices configured with 802.1X functionality. Cisco Nexus 1000V Switch for VMware vSphere devices are affected in versions prior to 5.2(1)SV3(1.4b). Nexus 3000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)I7(4). Nexus 3500 Platform Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)I7(4). Nexus 2000, 5500, 5600, and 6000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.3(5)N1(1) and 7.1(5)N1(1b). Nexus 7000 and 7700 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 8.2(3). Nexus 9000 Series Fabric Switches in ACI Mode are affected in versions prior to 13.2(1l). Nexus 9000 Series Switches in Standalone NX-OS Mode are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)I7(4).
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 analysisA legacy NVD category covering weaknesses where permissions or privileges are assigned, checked, or dropped incorrectly, so an action ends up running with more access than it should. It is an umbrella label from older records, not a single flaw. The remedy depends on the specific case, but the throughline is least privilege with explicit, checked transitions wherever privilege changes.
General guidance for the permissions, privileges & access controls class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
Nx OsOperating system
< 5.2\(1\)sv3\(1.4b\)>= 7.0\(3\)i7, < 7.0\(3\)i7\(4\)< 7.1\(5\)n1\(1b\)>= 8.3, < 8.3\(1\)< 13.2\(1l\)>= 7.2, < 7.3\(5\)n1\(1\)>= 8.0, < 8.2\(3\)>= 7.2, < 7.3\(3\)d1\(1\)>= 6.2, < 6.2\(20a\)CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 data5.26.27.0
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-1594 — 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-2019-1594 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