CVE-2023-20168
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 TACACS+ and RADIUS remote authentication for Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, local attacker to cause an affected device to unexpectedly reload. This vulnerability is due to incorrect input validation when processing an authentication attempt if the directed request option is enabled for TACACS+ or RADIUS. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by entering a crafted string at the login prompt of an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the affected device to unexpectedly reload, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a denial-of-service vulnerability in Cisco NX-OS Software affecting TACACS+ and RADIUS remote authentication when the directed request option is enabled. An unauthenticated local attacker can enter a specially crafted string at the login prompt that triggers incorrect input validation, causing the affected device to unexpectedly reload. The vulnerability stems from flawed processing of authentication attempts under specific configuration conditions.
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= 9.3\(11\)= 10.2\(5\)all 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check the NX-OS versionExecute 'show version' on the device and locate the NX-OS release line (e.g., 'Cisco NX-OS Software, Version 9.3(11)')Affected if The installed version matches 9.3(11), 10.2(5), or falls within any affected version range provided in the CVE advisory
-
Verify TACACS+ authentication is configuredRun 'show running-config | include tacacs' or 'show tacacs-server' to see if TACACS+ is enabledAffected if TACACS+ remote authentication is configured on the device
-
Check if directed request is enabled for TACACS+Run 'show running-config all tacacs' or look for 'directed-request' under the TACACS+ server group configurationAffected if The 'directed request' option is enabled for TACACS+ authentication
-
Verify RADIUS authentication is configuredRun 'show running-config | include radius' or 'show radius-server' to see if RADIUS is enabledAffected if RADIUS remote authentication is configured on the device
-
Check if directed request is enabled for RADIUSRun 'show running-config all radius' or look for 'directed-request' under the RADIUS server group configurationAffected if The 'directed request' option is enabled for RADIUS authentication
The device is affected if it runs a vulnerable NX-OS version AND has TACACS+ or RADIUS authentication configured with the directed request option enabled, because the vulnerability requires both conditions to be present for exploitation.
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 · scopedDisable the directed request option for TACACS+ and RADIUS authentication if not operationally required, or apply the Cisco-provided software update/patch for NX-OS that addresses the input validation flaw.
Cisco NX-OS version newer than 9.3(11) for 9.3.x train or newer than 10.2(5) for 10.2.x train (obtain exact fixed release from Cisco security advisory)
- 1. Verify if TACACS+ or RADIUS directed request option is enabled on the device using 'show tacacs-server' or 'show radius-server' commands
- 2. If directed request is enabled, consider disabling it as a temporary mitigation until upgrade can be performed using 'no tacacs-server directed-request' or 'no radius server directed-request' configuration command
- 3. Check Cisco's official security advisory for this CVE at sec.cloudapps.cisco.com or cisco.com to obtain the exact fixed software releases
- 4. Plan an upgrade to a Cisco NX-OS version newer than 9.3(11) for 9.3.x train or newer than 10.2(5) for 10.2.x train
- 5. Before upgrading in production, test the new version in a staging environment
- 6. Schedule a maintenance window and perform the upgrade following Cisco's standard NX-OS upgrade procedures
- 7. After upgrade, verify the vulnerability is remediated and TACACS+/RADIUS authentication still functions correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20168 — 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-2023-20168 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