CVE-2019-1957
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 web interface of Cisco IoT Field Network Director could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to trigger high CPU usage, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper handling of Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending renegotiation requests at a high rate. A successful exploit could increase the resource usage on the system, eventually leading to a 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 vulnerability in Cisco IoT Field Network Director's web interface allows unauthenticated remote attackers to cause denial of service by sending TLS renegotiation requests at high rates. The flaw stems from improper handling of these TLS renegotiation requests, which causes excessive resource consumption and eventually exhausts CPU availability.
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< 4.4.2-11CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Confirm Cisco IoT Field Network Director is installedIdentify whether the Cisco IoT Field Network Director product is deployed in your environment. Check installed software listings, product documentation, or consult your IT asset inventory.Affected if If the product is installed and running
-
Locate version informationAccess the product's administrative interface, check the help/about section, or review installation documentation to find the installed version number of Cisco IoT Field Network Director.Affected if Version cannot be determined or is below 4.4.2-11
-
Compare installed version against vulnerable rangeTake the version number identified in step 2 and compare it to the affected range: any version below 4.4.2-11 is vulnerable. Versions 4.4.2-11 and later contain the fix.Affected if Installed version is lower than 4.4.2-11
-
Verify web interface exposureDetermine if the product's web interface is accessible from network locations where untrusted parties could send TLS renegotiation requests. Check firewall rules, ACLs, and interface binding configurations.Affected if Web interface is exposed to untrusted networks without rate-limiting on TLS renegotiation
You are affected if Cisco IoT Field Network Director is installed with a version lower than 4.4.2-11 and its web interface is network-accessible.
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 data4.4.2-11
Apply the vendor-supplied patch from Cisco for this vulnerability. If immediate patching is not possible, consider rate-limiting or blocking TLS renegotiation requests at upstream network devices as a temporary mitigation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-1957 — 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-2019-1957 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