Sf200 24 FirmwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2019-1892
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 Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) input packet processor of Cisco Small Business 200, 300, and 500 Series Managed Switches could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a memory corruption on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of HTTPS packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malformed HTTPS packet to the management web interface of the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause an unexpected reload of the device, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition.
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 confidenceA memory corruption vulnerability exists in the SSL input packet processor of Cisco Small Business 200, 300, and 500 Series Managed Switches due to improper validation of HTTPS packets. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send malformed HTTPS packets to the management web interface, triggering memory corruption that causes an unexpected device reload and denial of service.
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
Sf200 24 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sf200 24p FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sf200 48 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sf200 48p FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sg200 18 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sg200 26 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sg200 26p FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6
Sg200 50 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.10.6CVSS 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 switch modelAccess the web UI or CLI and check the device model. In CLI, use 'show version' or check the physical device label. The affected models are Sf200 24, Sf200 24p, Sf200 48, Sf200 48p, Sg200 18, Sg200 26, Sg200 26p, and Sg200 50.Affected if The device model is one of these eight models: Sf200 24, Sf200 24p, Sf200 48, Sf200 48p, Sg200 18, Sg200 26, Sg200 26p, or Sg200 50.
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the switch web UI and navigate to the Administration or Status page to view the firmware version. In CLI, use 'show version' or 'show firmware-version'. Compare the version number to 1.4.10.6.Affected if The firmware version is lower than 1.4.10.6 (for example, 1.4.9.5, 1.4.8.2, etc.).
-
Verify the HTTPS management interface is enabledIn the web UI, go to Administration > Management Interface > HTTP/HTTPS Settings, or check via CLI with 'show http server status' or similar command. Attempt to reach the device at https://<device-ip> from an authorized host.Affected if The HTTPS management interface is enabled and the device responds to HTTPS requests on port 443.
-
Assess network exposure of the management interfaceReview network ACLs, VLAN configurations, and firewall rules to determine if the management IP is reachable from untrusted networks. Use 'show management' or 'show ip interface' in CLI to identify the management VLAN and its exposure.Affected if The management web interface is accessible from networks outside the trusted administrative VLAN.
You are affected if your switch is one of the eight listed models, running firmware below version 1.4.10.6, and the HTTPS management interface is enabled and reachable from your network.
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 data1.4.10.6
Apply the vendor-provided firmware patch when available. In the interim, restrict access to the management web interface using ACLs or network segmentation to prevent untrusted networks from reaching the management plane.
Fix this in Sf200 24 Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-1892 — 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-2019-1892 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