CVE-2025-20284
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 a specific API of Cisco ISE and Cisco ISE-PIC could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the underlying operating system as root. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An attacker with valid credentials could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted API request. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands as the root user. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid high-privileged credentials.
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 confidenceThis is a command injection vulnerability in Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Cisco ISE-PIC. An attacker with high-privileged credentials can submit a crafted API request containing malicious input that is not properly validated, allowing arbitrary OS command execution with root privileges.
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< 3.3.0= 3.3.0= 3.4.0< 3.3.0= 3.3.0= 3.4.0CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Verify Cisco ISE or ISE-PIC is installedCheck for Cisco ISE processes running on the system (e.g., running 'ps' or checking services). On the ISE CLI, run 'show version' to confirm the product.Affected if The system is running Cisco Identity Services Engine or Cisco ISE Passive Identity Connector.
-
Determine the installed version of Cisco ISEOn the ISE CLI, run 'show version' or access the ISE admin web UI and navigate to Administration > System > Licensing to view the version. For ISE-PIC, use the same CLI command.Affected if The installed version is < 3.3.0, = 3.3.0, or = 3.4.0.
-
Confirm API service is accessibleVerify that the ISE API service (REST API) is enabled and reachable. Check via the ISE web UI under Administration > System > Settings > API Settings, or by attempting to access the API endpoint (https://<ise-host>:9060/ers/config) from a trusted network location.Affected if The REST API service is enabled and accessible on the network.
-
Review high-privileged API user accountsIn the ISE web UI, go to Administration > Identity Management > Identities > Users. Check for accounts with 'Super Admin' or 'ERS Admin' privileges that have API access enabled.Affected if High-privileged user accounts (Super Admin, ERS Admin) exist with API access capabilities.
-
Inspect ISE audit logs for suspicious API activityIn the ISE web UI, go to Operations > RADIUS > Live Logs or use the 'show logging application' CLI command to review recent API calls. Look for unexpected or unauthorized API commands.Affected if Audit logs show API calls containing unusual characters or commands that may indicate injection attempts.
You are affected if Cisco ISE or ISE-PIC is installed with a version < 3.3.0, = 3.3.0, or = 3.4.0, the REST API is enabled, and high-privileged administrator accounts can submit API requests.
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 · scoped3.3.0
Apply Cisco security patches when released; restrict API access to only trusted high-privileged administrators; implement network segmentation to limit exposure; monitor for suspicious API activity.
3.4.1 or later
- Identify current version of Cisco ISE or ISE-PIC by navigating to Administration > System > Licensing or checking the dashboard
- Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade
- Backup the current Cisco ISE configuration using the backup and restore functionality
- Upgrade Cisco ISE or ISE-PIC to version 3.4.1 or later (the fixed release)
- After upgrade, verify the version under Administration > System > Licensing to confirm the fix is applied
- Test critical identity services to ensure functionality is intact
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20284 — 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-2025-20284 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