Confd BasicApplication · Cisco
CVE-2025-32433
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 · uneditedErlang/OTP is a set of libraries for the Erlang programming language. Prior to versions OTP-27.3.3, OTP-26.2.5.11, and OTP-25.3.2.20, a SSH server may allow an attacker to perform unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE). By exploiting a flaw in SSH protocol message handling, a malicious actor could gain unauthorized access to affected systems and execute arbitrary commands without valid credentials. This issue is patched in versions OTP-27.3.3, OTP-26.2.5.11, and OTP-25.3.2.20. A temporary workaround involves disabling the SSH server or to prevent access via firewall rules.
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 confidenceErlang/OTP SSH server contains a critical flaw in SSH protocol message handling that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands remotely. The vulnerability affects versions OTP-27 before 27.3.3, OTP-26 before 26.2.5.11, and OTP-25 before 25.3.2.20. Successful exploitation gives attackers full remote access without any valid credentials.
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
Confd BasicApplication
< 7.7.19.1>= 8.0.18, < 8.1.16.2>= 8.2, < 8.2.11.1>= 8.3, < 8.3.8.1>= 8.4, < 8.4.4.1
Network Services OrchestratorApplication
< 5.7.19.1>= 5.8, < 6.1.16.2>= 6.2, < 6.2.11.1>= 6.3, < 6.3.8.1>= 6.4, < 6.4.1.1>= 6.4.2, < 6.4.4.1
Cloud Native Broadband Network GatewayApplication
< 2025.03.1
Inode ManagerApplication
all versions
Smart PhyApplication
< 25.2
Ultra Packet CoreApplication
< 2025.03
Ultra Services PlatformApplication
all versions
StarosOperating system
< 2025.03CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 installed Cisco productsInventory the system for any of the following Cisco products: Confd Basic, Network Services Orchestrator, Cloud Native Broadband Network Gateway, Inode Manager, Smart Phy, Ultra Packet Core, Ultra Services Platform, or Staros. Use package managers, installed software lists, or product-specific commands to confirm presence.Affected if Any of the listed products are present on the system
-
Check product version against affected rangesFor each identified product, obtain its exact version number through the product's CLI, web interface, or version command. Compare against the affected version ranges provided in the CVE: Confd Basic < 7.7.19.1, 8.0.18 to < 8.1.16.2, 8.2 to < 8.2.11.1, 8.3 to < 8.3.8.1, 8.4 to < 8.4.4.1; NSO < 5.7.19.1, 5.8 to < 6.1.16.2, 6.2 to < 6.2.11.1, 6.3 to < 6.3.8.1, 6.4 to < 6.4.1.1, 6.4.2 to < 6.4.4.1; Cloud Native BBNG < 2025.03.1; Inode Manager all versions; Smart Phy < 25.2; Ultra Packet Core < 2025.03; Ultra Services Platform all versions; Staros < 2025.03Affected if The installed version falls within any of the affected ranges listed
-
Verify SSH server is enabledCheck if the SSH server functionality is enabled for the installed Cisco product. This may involve checking running services, listening network ports (port 22), or the product's configuration for SSH server status. Consult product-specific documentation for the exact method.Affected if SSH server is active and listening for connections
-
Confirm product uses Erlang/OTP SSHVerify that the Cisco product leverages Erlang/OTP for its SSH server implementation. This information may be available in product documentation, release notes, or by examining process information. The vulnerability exists specifically in the Erlang/OTP SSH server component.Affected if The product's SSH server is built on Erlang/OTP
You are affected if any of the listed Cisco products are installed with a version within the affected ranges AND the SSH server is enabled, as the flaw allows unauthenticated remote code execution through the SSH protocol message handling.
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 data5.7.19.16.1.16.26.2.11.1
Upgrade Erlang/OTP to version 27.3.3, 26.2.5.11, or 25.3.2.20 or later. As an interim measure, disable the SSH server or restrict access via firewall until the upgrade can be applied.
Fix this in Confd Basic
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,736.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-32433 — 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-2025-32433 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