Application Policy Infrastructure ControllerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2025-20117
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 CLI of Cisco APIC could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system of an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid administrative credentials. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments that are passed to specific CLI commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by including crafted input as the argument of an affected CLI command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with the privileges of root.
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 confidenceA command injection vulnerability exists in the Cisco APIC CLI where insufficient validation of arguments passed to specific CLI commands allows an authenticated attacker with administrative credentials to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands with root privileges. The attacker exploits this by providing crafted input as arguments to affected CLI commands.
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
Application Policy Infrastructure ControllerApplication
= 3.2\(1l\)= 3.2\(1m\)= 3.2\(2l\)= 3.2\(2o\)= 3.2\(3i\)= 3.2\(3j\)= 3.2\(3n\)= 3.2\(3o\)= 3.2\(3r\)= 3.2\(3s\)= 3.2\(4d\)= 3.2\(4e\)CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 Cisco APIC installationLog into the controller and run 'show version' or check the GUI for the product name. Cisco APIC is part of Cisco ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) fabric.Affected if The product is not Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC)
-
Check APIC software versionExecute 'show version' in the APIC CLI and locate the firmware or software version string. Compare against the affected list: 3.2(1l), 3.2(1m), 3.2(2l), 3.2(2o), 3.2(3i), 3.2(3j), 3.2(3n), 3.2(3o), 3.2(3r), 3.2(3s), 3.2(4d), 3.2(4e).Affected if The installed version matches any of the listed affected versions exactly
-
Verify administrative CLI access configurationReview the APIC user roles and authentication settings via 'show aaa authentication' and check which users have admin-level privileges. Confirm whether the administrative CLI is accessible to any non-trusted users.Affected if Multiple users or non-trusted personnel have administrative CLI access
-
Review recent CLI command historyCheck APIC audit logs for unusual command patterns. Use 'show audit' or review syslog exports for unexpected commands, especially those containing shell metacharacters like ; | ` $ ( ) or that spawn external processes.Affected if Audit logs show CLI commands with suspicious argument patterns or unexpected command executions
You are affected if you run Cisco APIC version 3.2(1l), 3.2(1m), 3.2(2l), 3.2(2o), 3.2(3i), 3.2(3j), 3.2(3n), 3.2(3o), 3.2(3r), 3.2(3s), 3.2(4d), or 3.2(4e) and have administrative CLI users beyond trusted personnel.
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 Cisco patch/upgrade when available; until then, restrict administrative CLI access to trusted personnel only and monitor for unusual command execution patterns.
Fix this in Application Policy Infrastructure Controller
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20117 — 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-2025-20117 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