Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Cisco ISE API Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2025-20282CWE-269

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Not blocked
CVSS
10.0
EPSS
38.7% Top 1%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts
Published
2025-06-25
A vulnerability in an internal API of Cisco ISE and Cisco ISE-PIC could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files to an affected device and then execute those files on the underlying operating system as root.… More

A vulnerability in an internal API of Cisco ISE and Cisco ISE-PIC could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files to an affected device and then execute those files on the underlying operating system as root. This vulnerability is due a lack of file validation checks that would prevent uploaded files from being placed in privileged directories on an affected system. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by uploading a crafted file to the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to store malicious files on the affected system and then execute arbitrary code or obtain root privileges on the system.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-20282: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Critical · 10.0 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2025-06-25
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-10-21
    F5 ships a rule
    Cisco ISE API Unauthenticated File Upload
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-10-21, 483 days after the CVE was published.

2026-10-21New rule200020259Source
Added: signature 200020259 "Cisco ISE API Unauthenticated File Upload" (Malicious File Upload, risk High), systems: Cisco. References: CVE-2025-20282.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.