CVE-2022-20895
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 RV110W, RV130, RV130W, and RV215W Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on an affected device or cause the device to restart unexpectedly, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient validation of user fields within incoming HTTP packets. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending a crafted request to the web-based management interface. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on an affected device with root-level privileges or to cause the device to restart unexpectedly, resulting in a DoS condition. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker would need to have valid Administrator credentials on the affected device. Cisco has not released software 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 confidenceThe vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV series routers (RV110W, RV130, RV130W, RV215W). Insufficient validation of user-supplied fields in HTTP requests allows an authenticated attacker with Administrator credentials to send crafted requests that result in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges or cause device denial of service via unexpected restarts.
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= 1.3.1.7= 1.3.1.7= 1.3.1.7= 1.3.1.7CVSS 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 modelAccess the router web interface or check the device label to confirm the model is RV110W, RV130, RV130W, or RV215WAffected if Model is one of RV110W, RV130, RV130W, or RV215W
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the web-based management interface and navigate to Status > System Summary or check the firmware version via CLI command 'show version' to identify the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version is 1.3.1.7
-
Verify web-based management interface statusIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management > HTTP/HTTPS and confirm whether the web-based management interface is enabledAffected if Web-based management interface is enabled and accessible
-
Check remote management settingsIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management > Remote Management and determine if remote management access is allowedAffected if Remote management over HTTP/HTTPS is enabled, allowing access from untrusted networks
Your environment is affected if you have a Cisco RV110W, RV130, RV130W, or RV215W router running firmware version 1.3.1.7 with the web-based management interface enabled, especially if remote management is accessible from untrusted 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.
dbcve · scopedSince no vendor patches are available, organizations should restrict access to the router management interface to trusted networks only, disable remote management if not required, monitor for unauthorized access attempts, and consider replacing affected devices with supported hardware.
- No vendor-provided fix is available. Cisco has explicitly stated no software updates will be released for these vulnerabilities.
- Consider migrating to a currently supported Cisco small business router model.
- If migration is not immediately possible, limit administrative access to the web management interface to trusted IP addresses only.
- Monitor Cisco security advisories for any future updates, though Cisco has indicated end-of-life for these models.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-20895 — 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-2022-20895 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