CVE-2024-20517
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 Small Business RV042, RV042G, RV320, and RV325 Routers could allow an authenticated, Administrator-level, remote attacker to cause an unexpected reload of an affected device, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need to have valid Administrator credentials on the affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper validation of user input that is in incoming HTTP packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to the web-based management interface of the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause an unexpected reload of the device, resulting in a 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 · high confidenceThe vulnerability exists in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV042, RV042G, RV320, and RV325 routers. Improper validation of user input in incoming HTTP packets allows an authenticated Administrator-level attacker to send a crafted HTTP request that causes an unexpected device reload, resulting in denial of service.
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= 1.0.1.17= 1.0.2.03= 1.1.0.09= 1.1.1.06= 1.1.1.19= 1.2.1.13= 1.2.1.14= 1.3.1.10= 1.3.1.12= 1.3.2.02= 1.3.12.6-tm= 1.3.12.19-tm= 1.0.1.17= 1.0.2.03= 1.1.0.09= 1.1.1.06= 1.1.1.19= 1.2.1.13= 1.2.1.14= 1.3.1.10= 1.3.1.12= 1.3.2.02= 1.3.12.6-tm= 1.3.12.19-tm= 1.0.1.17= 1.0.2.03= 1.1.0.09= 1.1.1.06= 1.1.1.19= 1.2.1.13= 1.2.1.14= 1.3.1.10= 1.3.1.12= 1.3.2.02= 1.3.12.6-tm= 1.3.12.19-tm= 1.0.1.17= 1.0.2.03= 1.1.0.09= 1.1.1.06= 1.1.1.19= 1.2.1.13= 1.2.1.14= 1.3.1.10= 1.3.1.12= 1.3.2.02= 1.3.12.6-tm= 1.3.12.19-tmCVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Identify the router modelAccess the web-based management interface and navigate to Status > System Summary, or check the device label/console output to confirm the model is RV042, RV042G, RV320, or RV325Affected if The model is one of RV042, RV042G, RV320, or RV325
-
Locate the firmware versionIn the web UI, go to Status > System Summary and locate the Firmware Version field; alternatively, check the login page footer or the router's console boot sequenceAffected if The installed firmware version is displayed on the device
-
Compare version to affected listMatch the installed firmware version against the affected versions: 1.0.1.17, 1.0.2.03, 1.1.0.09, 1.1.1.06, 1.1.1.19, 1.2.1.13, 1.2.1.14, 1.3.1.10, 1.3.1.12, 1.3.2.02, 1.3.12.6-tm, or 1.3.12.19-tmAffected if The installed version exactly matches one of the listed versions for your model
-
Verify web management interface is accessibleConfirm the router's web-based management interface (HTTP/HTTPS on ports 80 or 443) is reachable from your network by attempting to access the router's IP in a browserAffected if The web management interface is enabled and reachable
-
Confirm administrator access existsReview user accounts in the web UI under Administration > User Management to determine if any Administrator-level accounts are configured, or check for active sessionsAffected if Administrator-level credentials are configured or active on the device (the vulnerability requires an authenticated Administrator attacker)
The device is affected if it is an RV042, RV042G, RV320, or RV325 model running any of the 12 listed firmware versions and its web-based management interface is accessible to an authenticated Administrator.
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 the vendor firmware update when available. In the interim, restrict access to the web-based management interface to trusted networks or IP addresses only, and enforce strong Administrator credential policies.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20517 — 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-2024-20517 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