CVE-2020-3269
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 · uneditedMultiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco RV110W, RV130, RV130W, and RV215W Series Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with administrative privileges to execute arbitrary commands. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.
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 confidenceMultiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of Cisco RV110W, RV130, RV130W, and RV215W routers. An authenticated attacker with administrative privileges can inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands through insufficient input validation in web interface parameters.
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<= 1.2.2.5<= 1.0.3.54<= 1.0.3.54<= 1.3.1.5CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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 router modelAccess the router web interface and check the device status or system information page, or look at the physical device labelAffected if Model is RV110W, RV130, RV130W, or RV215W
-
Check firmware versionIn the router web interface, navigate to Administration > Firmware Upgrade or Status > System Information to view the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version is at or below 1.2.2.5 for RV110W, 1.0.3.54 for RV130/RV130W, or 1.3.1.5 for RV215W
-
Verify web-based management is enabledIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management > HTTP/HTTPS and check if web-based management is enabledAffected if HTTP or HTTPS management is enabled on any interface
-
Check remote access configurationIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management > Access Settings and verify if remote management access is permitted from WAN or non-local networksAffected if Remote management is allowed from WAN or untrusted networks (not restricted to LAN-only or trusted IPs)
-
Confirm administrative access existsVerify that administrative user accounts exist and are enabled in the router by checking Administration > User Management or similarAffected if At least one administrative account is configured and enabled
A user is affected if they have any of these four router models running firmware at or below the specified version with web-based management enabled and administrative accounts present.
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 dataApply the latest Cisco firmware update for the affected router models. If patching is unavailable, restrict web-based management access to trusted IP addresses only or disable remote management entirely.
- 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-2020-3269 — 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-2020-3269 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