CVE-2026-20020
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 OSPF protocol of Cisco Secure Firewall ASA Software and Cisco Secure FTD Software could allow an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause an affected device to reload unexpectedly, resulting in a DoS condition. If OSPF authentication is enabled, the attacker must know the secret key to exploit this vulnerability. This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation when processing OSPF update packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted OSPF update packets. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to create a buffer overflow, causing the affected 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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in Cisco ASA and FTD OSPF protocol implementation allows an adjacent unauthenticated attacker to send crafted OSPF update packets, causing a device reload and DoS condition. If OSPF authentication is enabled, the attacker requires knowledge of the secret key.
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= 9.12.1= 9.12.1.2= 9.12.1.3= 9.12.2= 9.12.2.1= 9.12.2.4= 9.12.2.5= 9.12.2.9= 9.12.3= 9.12.3.2= 9.12.3.7= 9.12.3.9= 6.4.0= 6.4.0.1= 6.4.0.2= 6.4.0.3= 6.4.0.4= 6.4.0.5= 6.4.0.6= 6.4.0.7= 6.4.0.8= 6.4.0.9= 6.4.0.10= 6.4.0.11CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Identify device product and versionRun 'show version' on the device CLI and locate the software version string (e.g., 'Version 9.12.3' for ASA or 'Version 6.4.0.11' for FTD)Affected if The device runs Cisco ASA Software version 9.12.1, 9.12.1.2, 9.12.1.3, 9.12.2, 9.12.2.1, 9.12.2.4, 9.12.2.5, 9.12.2.9, 9.12.3, 9.12.3.2, 9.12.3.7, or 9.12.3.9, OR Cisco FTD version 6.4.0 through 6.4.0.11
-
Verify OSPF is enabledRun 'show ospf' or 'show ospf interface' to confirm OSPF routing process is active and interfaces are participating in OSPFAffected if OSPF is running and the device participates in an OSPF area
-
Check OSPF authentication configurationRun 'show ospf authentication' or examine OSPF interface configuration with 'show running-config interface' to see if message-digest (MD5) or HMAC authentication is configuredAffected if OSPF authentication is not configured or uses a weak/shared secret key that could be compromised
-
Confirm adjacency exposureReview network topology and OSPF neighbor adjacencies using 'show ospf neighbor' to determine if the device accepts OSPF packets from untrusted adjacent segmentsAffected if The device has OSPF neighbors on network segments accessible to untrusted or adjacent attackers
A device is affected if it runs an affected ASA or FTD version, has OSPF enabled, and either lacks OSPF authentication or uses authentication on segments accessible to adjacent attackers with knowledge of the secret key.
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 · scopedEnable OSPF authentication with a strong secret key and implement network segmentation to restrict adjacent attacker access to OSPF interfaces. Apply Cisco-provided software patches when available.
Contact Cisco TAC for specific fixed releases. ASA 9.12.x and FTD 6.4.x are affected; upgrade to latest available stable release per Cisco's remediation guidance.
- 1. Identify if OSPF is enabled on the affected Cisco ASA or FTD device
- 2. If OSPF is not required, disable it to eliminate the attack surface
- 3. If OSPF is required, ensure OSPF authentication is properly configured with a strong secret key
- 4. Contact Cisco TAC or check Cisco.com for the latest fixed software releases for this vulnerability
- 5. Plan maintenance window for upgrade implementation
- 6. Upgrade ASA Software to a version later than 9.12.2 (contact Cisco for specific fixed release)
- 7. Upgrade Firepower Threat Defense to a version later than 6.4.0.3 (contact Cisco for specific fixed release)
- 8. After upgrade, verify OSPF functionality is restored and the device is stable
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-20020 — 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-2026-20020 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