Infinite LoopWeakness · CWE-835

CVE-2025-20136

HIGH · 8.6 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-08-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A vulnerability in the function that performs IPv4 and IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT) DNS inspection for 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 an infinite loop condition that occurs when a Cisco Secure ASA or Cisco Secure FTD device processes DNS packets with DNS inspection enabled and the device is configured for NAT44, NAT64, or NAT46. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted DNS packets that match a static NAT rule with DNS inspection enabled through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to create an infinite loop and 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 · high confidence

A vulnerability in Cisco Secure Firewall ASA and FTD Software's NAT DNS inspection function allows crafted DNS packets matching static NAT rules to trigger an infinite loop, causing unexpected device reloads and denial of service. The issue occurs specifically when DNS inspection is enabled alongside NAT44, NAT64, or NAT46 configurations.

MitigationApply Cisco-provided software patches when available; meanwhile, temporarily disable DNS inspection on affected NAT rules or remove the problematic NAT/DNS inspection combination to mitigate exploitation.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify device model and software version
    Run 'show version' on the ASA/FTD CLI to confirm the device is a Cisco Secure Firewall ASA or FTD appliance and record the software version number
    Affected if Device runs ASA or FTD software - compare your installed version to Cisco's official affected version list for this CVE
  2. Check if DNS inspection is enabled
    Run 'show service-policy | include dns' or inspect the running configuration with 'show running-config | include dns' to determine if DNS inspection is configured
    Affected if DNS inspection is globally enabled or applied to specific traffic policies
  3. Verify NAT44, NAT64, or NAT46 configuration exists
    Run 'show nat' or 'show running-config nat' to list all NAT rules configured on the device
    Affected if Any NAT44, NAT64, or NAT46 rules are present on the device
  4. Identify static NAT rules in the configuration
    Examine the NAT configuration output for 'static' NAT rule entries, as the vulnerability specifically relates to static NAT in combination with DNS inspection
    Affected if Static NAT rules are configured alongside DNS inspection

The device is affected if it runs a vulnerable ASA/FTD version AND has DNS inspection enabled AND has NAT44, NAT64, or NAT46 static NAT rules configured, creating the conditions for the infinite loop when crafted DNS packets match the NAT rules.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply Cisco-provided software patches when available; meanwhile, temporarily disable DNS inspection on affected NAT rules or remove the problematic NAT/DNS inspection combination to mitigate exploitation.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,780
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,448.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20136 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-20136 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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