CVE-2021-34780
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 exist in the Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) implementation for Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches. An unauthenticated, adjacent attacker could perform the following: Execute code on the affected device or cause it to reload unexpectedly Cause LLDP database corruption on the affected device For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory. Note: LLDP is a Layer 2 protocol. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker must be in the same broadcast domain as the affected device (Layer 2 adjacent). Cisco has released firmware updates that address these vulnerabilities.
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 vulnerabilities in the LLDP implementation of Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches allow an unauthenticated, Layer 2 adjacent attacker to execute arbitrary code, cause unexpected device reloads (DoS), or corrupt the LLDP database. The CVSS 8.8 score reflects the high impact of code execution combined with the adjacent network requirement.
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<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6<= 1.2.0.6CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 the switch modelPhysically inspect the device or access the web GUI/CLI to confirm the model is a Cisco Business 220 series switch (such as 220 8t, 220 8p, 220 8fp, 220 16t, 220 16p, 220 24t, 220 24p, or 220 24fp).Affected if The device is any Cisco Business 220 series model listed in the affected products.
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the switch web interface under Administration > Firmware Upgrade, or use the CLI command 'show version' to retrieve the installed firmware version.Affected if The firmware version is 1.2.0.6 or lower.
-
Verify LLDP is enabledAccess the switch web GUI under Port Management > LLDP, or use the CLI command 'show lldp' to check whether LLDP is enabled globally or on any ports.Affected if LLDP is enabled on the switch or on any port.
You are affected if you have a Cisco Business 220 series switch running firmware version 1.2.0.6 or lower with LLDP enabled on the device or any of its ports.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the Cisco firmware update for the 220 Series Smart Switches. As a compensating control, limit Layer 2 adjacency by segmenting vulnerable devices or disabling LLDP on untrusted ports until the update can be applied.
Any firmware version higher than 1.2.0.6 (contact Cisco for the exact fixed release)
- Verify the current firmware version on the affected Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switch by accessing the web-based management interface or using CLI commands
- Download the latest firmware version from Cisco's official support website (tools.cisco.com) or the Cisco firmware download center
- Backup the current device configuration before performing the firmware upgrade
- Upload the new firmware file through the switch's web interface or TFTP upgrade process
- Verify the firmware upgrade was successful and the device is operating normally
- Confirm the LLDP service is functioning properly after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-34780 — 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-2021-34780 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