Secure Firewall Management CenterApplication · Cisco
CVE-2024-20298
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 the web-based management interface of Cisco Firepower Management Center (FMC) Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface of an affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by inserting crafted input into various data fields in an affected interface. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the interface, or access sensitive, browser-based information.
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 confidenceA stored XSS vulnerability exists in Cisco Firepower Management Center's web-based management interface due to insufficient input validation. An authenticated attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into data fields, which executes when other users view the affected interface, allowing session hijacking or data theft.
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
Secure Firewall Management CenterApplication
= 7.3.0= 7.3.1= 7.3.1.1= 7.3.1.2= 7.4.0= 7.4.1= 7.4.1.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check installed Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center versionLog into the FMC CLI or web interface and locate the version information. In the web UI, this is typically found under System > Configuration > Product Updates or in the dashboard. From CLI, use 'show version' or 'sudo sf_reboot -V'.Affected if The installed version exactly matches 7.3.0, 7.3.1, 7.3.1.1, 7.3.1.2, 7.4.0, 7.4.1, or 7.4.1.1
-
Verify web-based management interface is enabledConfirm the FMC web UI is active and accessible. Check via the admin login page or by reviewing the HTTP/HTTPS listener status on the FMC device.Affected if The web-based management interface is enabled and reachable on the network
-
Identify data fields in the FMC web interface susceptible to stored XSSReview common input fields in the FMC web UI such as object names, policy descriptions, device hostnames, user-defined labels, and system notification fields. These are typical vectors where an authenticated attacker could inject script content.Affected if User-controllable text fields exist in the web interface that accept input without sanitization and are stored for later display to other users
-
Examine interface logs or user session data for signs of script injectionReview FMC logs under System > Monitoring > Logs or the connection/event logs for unusual script tags, encoded payloads, or repeated alert patterns that may indicate XSS exploitation attempts.Affected if Logs show evidence of malicious script tags or XSS probe attempts in user-supplied fields
-
Check for unauthorized session hijacking or unexpected admin actionsReview user session logs, audit logs under System > Monitoring > Audit Log, and check for sessions or actions initiated from unexpected IP addresses or at unusual times.Affected if Audit logs reveal unauthorized administrative actions or sessions that were not initiated by legitimate administrators
A user is affected if the installed Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center version exactly matches one of the listed affected versions AND the web-based management interface is accessible, as the stored XSS requires an authenticated attacker to inject malicious script into data fields that are later displayed to other users.
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.
From vendor dataApply Cisco's official patch when available; otherwise, restrict administrative access to trusted users and monitor interface activity for signs of XSS exploitation.
Fix this in Secure Firewall Management Center
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20298 — 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-2024-20298 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