Rv016 FirmwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2020-3293
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 RV320/RV325/RV016/RV042/RV082 routers allow authenticated remote attackers with administrative privileges to execute arbitrary code by sending crafted requests containing overly large values to affected scripts, achieving root-level code execution on the underlying operating system.
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 the router modelLog into the router's web-based management interface and locate the System Summary or Status page to confirm the exact model number (RV016, RV042, RV042g, RV082, RV320, or RV325)Affected if The model is not one of these six listed models - the vulnerability does not apply
-
Check the installed firmware versionIn the web interface, navigate to Administration > Firmware Upgrade or System Summary to view the current firmware version. Compare against the affected ranges: RV016/RV042/RV042g/RV082 must be <= 4.2.3.10, and RV320/RV325 must be <= 1.5.1.05Affected if The firmware version is at or below these thresholds - the device is running a vulnerable version
-
Verify if web-based management is enabledIn the web interface, go to Administration > Management or Security settings to confirm whether the HTTP/HTTPS web management interface is enabledAffected if Web management is disabled - the attack surface is not present, though the device may still be vulnerable if re-enabled
-
Check if remote access is permittedIn the web interface, locate the Remote Management settings (usually under Administration or Security > Remote Management) to determine if web access is allowed from WAN/outside networksAffected if Remote management from WAN is enabled - the vulnerability is exploitable remotely by anyone with administrative credentials
A user is affected if they are running one of the six listed models with firmware at or below the specified version thresholds AND have the web-based management interface enabled, particularly if accessible from remote networks.
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 official Cisco firmware patches when available; if no patch exists, restrict web management interface access to trusted networks or disable remote management, and consider replacement of affected end-of-life devices.
Fix this in Rv016 Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3293 — 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-2020-3293 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