CVE-2022-20830
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 vulnerability in authentication mechanism of Cisco Software-Defined Application Visibility and Control (SD-AVC) on Cisco vManage could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to access the GUI of Cisco SD-AVC without authentication. This vulnerability exists because the GUI is accessible on self-managed cloud installations or local server installations of Cisco vManage. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by accessing the exposed GUI of Cisco SD-AVC. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to view managed device names, SD-AVC logs, and SD-AVC DNS server IP addresses.
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 confidenceAuthentication bypass vulnerability in Cisco SD-AVC (Software-Defined Application Visibility and Control) on Cisco vManage allows unauthenticated remote attackers to access the GUI interface. The vulnerability exists because the GUI is exposed on self-managed cloud or local server installations without proper authentication enforcement. Successful exploitation permits viewing of managed device names, SD-AVC logs, and SD-AVC DNS server IP addresses.
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>= 20.4, < 20.6.1= 20.7>= 18.4, < 20.3.4.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 vManage versionRun 'show version' or check the vManage admin UI for the installed software version numberAffected if The version falls within >= 20.4 and < 20.6.1, equals 20.7 (for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager), or within >= 18.4 and < 20.3.4.1 (for Cisco SD-WAN vManage)
-
Verify SD-AVC component is activeCheck if the Software-Defined Application Visibility and Control feature is enabled in the vManage system settings or configurationAffected if SD-AVC is enabled and running on the vManage instance
-
Confirm deployment typeDetermine whether the vManage installation is a self-managed cloud deployment or on-premises local server, as opposed to a Cisco-hosted serviceAffected if The installation is self-managed cloud or local server rather than a fully managed Cisco-hosted deployment
-
Test GUI authentication enforcementAttempt to access the SD-AVC GUI interface URL (typically /sdavc or /appmnt/sdavc) from an unauthenticated browser session or via curl without credentialsAffected if The GUI interface is accessible without requiring authentication credentials
A user is affected if their vManage runs an affected version, SD-AVC is enabled, it is a self-managed deployment, and the GUI can be accessed without authentication.
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 · scoped20.3.4.120.6.1
Apply proper authentication controls to the SD-AVC GUI on self-managed cloud and local vManage installations; consult Cisco security advisories for specific patch or configuration guidance.
Catalyst SD WAN Manager: 20.6.1 or later (20.8+ recommended); SD WAN vManage: 20.3.4.1 or later (20.4+ recommended)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Cisco vManage version by checking the system information or running 'show version' in the CLI
- 2. For Catalyst SD WAN Manager: Upgrade to version 20.6.1 or later (20.8 or newer recommended)
- 3. For SD WAN vManage: Upgrade to version 20.3.4.1 or later (20.4 or newer recommended)
- 4. Download the appropriate Cisco SD WAN software from Cisco.com (requires valid SMARTnet contract)
- 5. Follow Cisco's standard upgrade procedure for vManage: upload the .tar file to the vManage repository, then initiate the upgrade via the vManage GUI or CLI
- 6. After upgrade, verify the new version is installed and confirm the SD-AVC GUI now requires authentication
- 7. Review Cisco release notes for any additional post-upgrade configuration steps
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-20830 — 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-2022-20830 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