Improper Access ControlWeakness · CWE-284

CVE-2025-20339

MEDIUM · 5.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-24
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
67/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 access control list (ACL) processing of IPv4 packets of Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass a configured ACL. This vulnerability is due to the improper enforcement of the implicit deny all at the end of a configured ACL. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by attempting to send unauthorized traffic to an interface on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass an ACL on the affected device.

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

This vulnerability in Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Software involves improper enforcement of the implicit deny all rule at the end of IPv4 ACLs. The ACL processing logic fails to implicitly deny traffic that doesn't match any explicit ACL entries, allowing unauthorized traffic to bypass configured ACLs. An attacker can send traffic to an affected device interface that should be blocked but will be permitted.

MitigationApply the Cisco software update addressing CVE-2025-20339 when available. Until then, implement additional compensating controls such as stricter edge filtering or alternative firewall mechanisms.

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
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

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 and version
    Run 'show version' or 'show software' command on the Cisco SD-WAN vEdge device to obtain the installed software version.
    Affected if The device runs Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Software and the version falls within the affected range (compare your installed version to known affected versions).
  2. Confirm IPv4 ACL configuration
    Run 'show access-lists' or 'show configuration | match access-list' to list all configured IPv4 access control lists on the device.
    Affected if IPv4 ACLs are configured on any interface (the vulnerability affects ACL processing regardless of which interface).
  3. Check ACL entries and implicit deny behavior
    Run 'show access-list <acl-name>' to view detailed ACL entries. Use 'show platform hardware qfp active feature acl' or similar platform commands to verify ACL processing behavior and whether implicit deny is being enforced.
    Affected if The ACL contains entries but traffic not matching any explicit entry appears to be permitted instead of denied (test with traffic that should be blocked).
  4. Test implicit deny enforcement
    Configure a test ACL with specific permit entries and send traffic destined for IPs/networks not covered by any explicit permit statement. Use 'show access-list statistics' or packet capture to observe whether unmatched traffic is being dropped.
    Affected if Unmatched traffic passes through when it should be implicitly denied by the ACL.

A defender is affected if running vulnerable Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Software with configured IPv4 ACLs where traffic that does not match any explicit ACL entry is permitted instead of being denied.

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 the Cisco software update addressing CVE-2025-20339 when available. Until then, implement additional compensating controls such as stricter edge filtering or alternative firewall mechanisms.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,560
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20339 — 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-2025-20339 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