CVE-2020-3176
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 Cisco Remote PHY Device Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute commands on the underlying Linux shell of an affected device with root privileges. The vulnerability exists because the affected software does not properly sanitize user-supplied input. An attacker who has valid administrator access to an affected device could exploit this vulnerability by supplying certain CLI commands with crafted arguments. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to run arbitrary commands as the root user, which could result in a complete system compromise.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a command injection vulnerability in Cisco Remote PHY Device Software where an authenticated local attacker with valid administrator credentials can execute arbitrary Linux shell commands with root privileges by supplying crafted arguments to certain CLI commands. The vulnerability stems from improper sanitization of user-supplied input in the CLI interface.
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< 7.7all versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 Remote PHY device modelAccess the device CLI or device inventory and determine if the hardware is a Cisco Remote Phy 120, Remote Phy 220, or Remote Phy Shelf 7200Affected if The device is a Remote Phy 220 or Remote Phy Shelf 7200 (all versions affected), or a Remote Phy 120 (check version next)
-
Check the installed firmware versionRun the CLI command 'show version' or similar to retrieve the firmware versionAffected if For Remote Phy 120: version is less than 7.7; for Remote Phy 220 or Shelf 7200: any version is affected since all are vulnerable
-
Confirm administrative CLI access existsVerify that administrator-level CLI accounts are configured on the deviceAffected if Administrative credentials exist and can log into the CLI, which is required for exploitation
-
Review for signs of command injectionCheck system logs, running processes, or unusual files in the filesystem that may indicate exploitation of this vulnerabilityAffected if Evidence of arbitrary shell commands or processes running that were not initiated by legitimate administrators
You are affected if you are running Cisco Remote Phy 120 firmware below version 7.7, or any version of Remote Phy 220 or Remote Phy Shelf 7200 firmware, and administrative CLI access is available on the device.
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 data7.7
Apply the vendor patch when available and enforce strict administrative access controls. Limit administrative accounts to only those who require it and monitor for unusual CLI activity.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3176 — 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-2020-3176 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