CVE-2025-20134
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 certificate processing of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the device to reload unexpectedly, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. This vulnerability is due to improper parsing of SSL/TLS certificates. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted DNS packets that match a static Network Address Translation (NAT) rule with DNS inspection enabled through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to reload, 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 · moderate confidenceThis is a denial-of-service vulnerability in Cisco ASA and FTD firewall software caused by improper SSL/TLS certificate parsing. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger device reload by sending crafted DNS packets that match a static NAT rule with DNS inspection enabled.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm device model and typeRun 'show version' or 'show module' to identify if the device is Cisco ASA or Firepower Threat Defense (FTD)Affected if Device is not Cisco ASA or FTD - this CVE does not apply
-
Identify static NAT rulesRun 'show nat' or 'show running-config nat' to list configured NAT rules. Look for static NAT entries using the 'static' commandAffected if No static NAT rules are configured - the device may not be exploitable
-
Check if DNS inspection is enabledRun 'show service-policy inspect dns' or examine the running configuration for 'inspect dns' under the policy-map. Also check global inspection settings with 'show running-config | include inspect dns'Affected if DNS inspection is not enabled globally or on any traffic policy - the attack vector is not present
-
Verify DNS inspection is applied to trafficCheck if the DNS inspection policy is attached to an interface or global policy using 'show service-policy' or review the policy-map configurationAffected if DNS inspection exists in config but is not actively applied to traffic - risk is reduced
-
Compare installed version to affected rangeRun 'show version' to obtain the ASA or FTD software version. Compare against the Cisco vulnerability advisory for CVE-2025-20134 to determine if your version falls within affected releasesAffected if Running version is newer than the fixed release listed in Cisco advisory - device may not be affected
A device is affected if it is Cisco ASA or FTD with both a static NAT rule configured AND DNS inspection actively enabled, running an affected software version, as the attacker needs both conditions to send crafted DNS packets that trigger the vulnerability.
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 · scopedApply the Cisco security patch when available. Until then, consider disabling DNS inspection if not operationally critical, or implement additional filtering on upstream networks to drop malformed DNS packets before they reach the firewall.
Refer to Cisco advisory for your specific ASA or FTD version - Cisco will specify the fixed release (e.g., 9.x or 7.x train depending on your current version)
- Check the Cisco Security Advisory (cisco-sa) for CVE-2025-20134 on sec.cloudapps.cisco.com or cisco.com for the exact list of affected versions
- Identify your current Cisco ASA or FTD software version using 'show version' command
- Download and install the fixed software release specified in the Cisco advisory for your product model
- After upgrade, verify the device reloads normally and DNS inspection functions correctly
- Document the upgrade in change management and verify NAT rules with DNS inspection are working as expected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,128.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20134 — 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-2025-20134 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