Rv016 FirmwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2020-3290
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 Small Business RV320 and RV325 Series Routers and Cisco Small Business RV016, RV042, and RV082 Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with administrative privileges to execute arbitrary code on an affected device. The vulnerabilities are due to insufficient boundary restrictions on user-supplied input to scripts in the web-based management interface. An attacker with administrative privileges that are sufficient to log in to the web-based management interface could exploit each vulnerability by sending crafted requests that contain overly large values to an affected device, causing a stack overflow. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to crash or allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges on the underlying operating system.
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 confidenceStack overflow vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV series routers (RV016, RV042, RV082, RV320, RV325) allow authenticated attackers with administrative privileges to send crafted requests containing overly large values, triggering stack overflow that can crash the device or enable arbitrary code execution with root privileges.
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
Rv016 FirmwareOperating system
<= 4.2.3.10
Rv042 FirmwareOperating system
<= 4.2.3.10
Rv042g FirmwareOperating system
<= 4.2.3.10
Rv082 FirmwareOperating system
<= 4.2.3.10
Rv320 FirmwareOperating system
<= 1.5.1.05
Rv325 FirmwareOperating system
<= 1.5.1.05CVSS 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 navigate to Status > System Summary, or log into the router CLI and run 'show version' to confirm the exact model number (RV016, RV042, RV042g, RV082, RV320, or RV325)Affected if Router model is any of RV016, RV042, RV042g, RV082, RV320, or RV325
-
Check firmware versionIn the router web interface, go to Status > System Summary to view the firmware version, or use the CLI command 'show version' to display the installed firmware buildAffected if Firmware version is <= 4.2.3.10 for RV016/RV042/RV042g/RV082, or <= 1.5.1.05 for RV320/RV325
-
Verify web management interface statusIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management to confirm if the HTTP or HTTPS web management interface is enabledAffected if HTTP or HTTPS web management interface is enabled and accessible
-
Check for unauthorized administrative accountsIn the router web interface, go to Administration > User Management to review all administrative accounts for any unauthorized or unexpected entriesAffected if Any unexpected administrative accounts exist or if there are signs of account modification
-
Review access logs for large request payloadsIf logging is configured, access the router logs via Status > Logs or syslog and search for POST requests containing unusually large parameter values that may indicate exploitation attemptsAffected if Logs show POST requests with oversized values or patterns consistent with stack overflow exploitation attempts
The environment is affected if the router model is one of the six listed models and the installed firmware version falls at or below the specified threshold while the web-based management interface remains enabled.
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 available Cisco firmware updates for affected router models. If no update is available, restrict web management interface access to trusted networks only and monitor for unauthorized administrative access.
Fix this in Rv016 Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3290 — 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-2020-3290 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