CVE-2021-20045
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 buffer overflow vulnerability in SMA100 sonicfiles RAC_COPY_TO (RacNumber 36) method allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to potentially execute code as the 'nobody' user in the appliance. This vulnerability affected SMA 200, 210, 400, 410 and 500v appliances.
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 in the SMA100 series appliance's sonicfiles RAC_COPY_TO method (RacNumber 36) allows remote unauthenticated attackers to potentially execute code as the 'nobody' user. This critical flaw affects SMA 200, 210, 400, 410, and 500v appliances.
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= 10.2.0.8-37sv= 10.2.1.1-19sv= 10.2.0.8-37sv= 10.2.1.1-19sv= 10.2.0.8-37sv= 10.2.1.1-19sv= 10.2.0.8-37sv= 10.2.1.1-19sv= 10.2.0.8-37sv= 10.2.1.1-19svCVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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 SMA appliance modelAccess the SMA management interface or check the device label/hardware to confirm the model is one of: SMA 200, SMA 210, SMA 400, SMA 410, or SMA 500vAffected if The device is any of these five models
-
Check installed firmware versionNavigate to the SMA web interface System > Status or use the CLI command 'version' to retrieve the current firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is exactly 10.2.0.8-37sv or exactly 10.2.1.1-19sv
-
Verify sonicfiles module is accessibleCheck if the /cgi-bin/sonicfiles endpoint or similar RAC interface is exposed and responding on the applianceAffected if The sonicfiles RAC module is reachable on the network
-
Confirm RAC_COPY_TO method exposureInspect HTTP requests to the SMA management interface for the RAC_COPY_TO method (RacNumber 36) in the sonicfiles serviceAffected if The RAC_COPY_TO method is available and accepts external input
A defender is affected if they run an SMA 200, 210, 400, 410, or 500v appliance with firmware version 10.2.0.8-37sv or 10.2.1.1-19sv and the sonicfiles RAC interface is network-accessible.
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 vendor-provided security patches or firmware updates to all affected SMA appliances. If patches are unavailable, restrict network access to the management interface to reduce exposure.
- 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-2021-20045 — 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-2021-20045 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