CVE-2023-20145
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 RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, and RV325 Routers could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks against a user of the interface. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input validation by the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending crafted HTTP requests to an affected device and then persuading a user to visit specific web pages that include malicious payloads. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information. 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 confidenceMultiple reflected XSS vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV series routers (RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, RV325) due to insufficient input validation. Unauthenticated remote attackers can inject malicious JavaScript payloads via crafted HTTP requests that execute in the context of the router's web interface when users are persuaded to visit malicious pages.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 router modelAccess the router's web interface or check the device label/menu to confirm the model is one of: RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, or RV325Affected if The model matches any of these six models
-
Verify web management interface is enabledLog into the router admin panel and navigate to Administration > Management > HTTP/HTTPS access settings, or inspect network port 80/443 is listening on the deviceAffected if The web-based management interface (HTTP or HTTPS) is enabled and accessible
-
Check WAN/remote access exposureIn the router web interface, go to Administration > Management and verify if HTTP/HTTPS access is allowed from WAN (Internet) side, or check firewall/ACL rules for external access to port 80/443Affected if The web interface is accessible from WAN (the internet) rather than only from the local LAN
-
Review HTTP access logs for suspicious requestsCheck router logs or system logging for crafted HTTP requests containing script tags, javascript:, or unusual URL parameters that may indicate XSS probingAffected if Logs show anomalous HTTP requests with potential XSS payloads targeting the web interface
A user is affected if they own an RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, or RV325 router with the web management interface enabled, especially if it is exposed to 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 Cisco has not released patches, mitigate by restricting management interface access to trusted networks only (disable WAN access, use ACLs or VPN for remote access), and monitor for suspicious activity targeting the web interface.
- This vulnerability has no available fix from Cisco. The vendor has explicitly stated no software updates will be released for these end-of-life router models.
- Consider replacing affected devices with currently supported Cisco Small Business routers that receive security updates.
- If replacement is not immediately possible, restrict network access to the management interface using ACLs or firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted internal networks only.
- Disable remote management access via WAN if not absolutely necessary.
- Monitor Cisco security advisories for any future updates or alternative mitigation guidance.
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-2023-20145 — 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-2023-20145 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