CVE-2020-3172
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 Cisco Discovery Protocol feature of Cisco FXOS Software and Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to execute arbitrary code as root or cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability exists because of insufficiently validated Cisco Discovery Protocol packet headers. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted Cisco Discovery Protocol packet to a Layer 2-adjacent affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a buffer overflow that could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code as root or cause a DoS condition on the affected device. Note: Cisco Discovery Protocol is a Layer 2 protocol. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must be in the same broadcast domain as the affected device (Layer 2 adjacent). Note: This vulnerability is different from the following Cisco FXOS and NX-OS Software Cisco Discovery Protocol vulnerabilities that Cisco announced on Feb. 5, 2020: Cisco FXOS, IOS XR, and NX-OS Software Cisco Discovery Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability and Cisco NX-OS Software Cisco Discovery Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability.
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 buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) feature of Cisco FXOS and NX-OS software due to insufficiently validated CDP packet headers. An attacker on the same Layer 2 broadcast domain can send a crafted CDP packet causing overflow and enabling arbitrary code execution as root or 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< 2.6.1.187>= 2.7, < 2.7.1.106< 3.2\(3n\)>= 4.0, < 4.0\(4g\)all versions= 5.2\(1\)sv5\(1.2\)= 7.3\(5\)n1\(1\)= 7.3\(0\)d1\(0.140\)= 7.3\(0\)d1\(0.146\)= 7.0\(3\)i3\(0.191\)= 13.2\(7.230\)= 14.2\(1i\)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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 software productDetermine whether the device runs Cisco FXOS, Cisco UCS Manager, or Cisco NX-OS. Use 'show version' or check the system documentation.Affected if The device runs FXOS, UCS Manager, or NX-OS software.
-
Determine the installed software versionRun 'show version' on the device CLI to obtain the exact software version number. For FXOS, also run 'show version' from the FXOS chassis manager. For UCS Manager, run 'show version' from the UCS CLI.Affected if The installed version falls within the affected ranges: FXOS < 2.6.1.187 or >= 2.7.0 and < 2.7.1.106; UCS Manager < 3.2(3n) or >= 4.0(0) and < 4.0(4g); NX-OS any version or one of the specific versions listed (5.2(1)sv5(1.2), 7.3(5)n1(1), 7.3(0)d1(0.140), 7.3(0)d1(0.146), 7.0(3)i3(0.191), 13.2(7.230
-
Verify if Cisco Discovery Protocol is enabledRun 'show cdp neighbor' or 'show cdp' from the device CLI. If output is returned showing neighbors or CDP is listed as enabled, the protocol is active.Affected if CDP is enabled and running on the device.
-
Check CDP configuration statusRun 'show running-config | include cdp' or 'show cdp interface' to see which interfaces have CDP enabled.Affected if CDP is enabled on any interface, particularly on accessible Layer 2 interfaces.
The device is affected if it runs FXOS, UCS Manager, or NX-OS within the affected version ranges AND has Cisco Discovery Protocol enabled on any interface.
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 data2.6.1.1872.7.1.1063.2
Apply Cisco security patches for FXOS/NX-OS. Alternatively, disable Cisco Discovery Protocol on affected devices if not required, or implement strict Layer 2 access controls to prevent unauthorized adjacent attackers.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3172 — 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-2020-3172 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