Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Cisco IOS and IOS XE Software SNMP Denial of Service and Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2025-09-29CVE-2025-20352CWE-121

Exploited since 2025-09-29. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
7.7
EPSS
40.6% Top 1%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 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 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2025-09-24
A vulnerability in the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) subsystem of Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software could allow the following: An authenticated, remote attacker with low privileges could cause a denial of… More

A vulnerability in the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) subsystem of Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software could allow the following: An authenticated, remote attacker with low privileges could cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device that is running Cisco IOS Software or Cisco IOS XE Software. To cause the DoS, the attacker must have the SNMPv2c or earlier read-only community string or valid SNMPv3 user credentials. An authenticated, remote attacker with high privileges could execute code as the root user on an affected device that is running Cisco IOS XE Software. To execute code as the root user, the attacker must have the SNMPv1 or v2c read-only community string or valid SNMPv3 user credentials and administrative or privilege 15 credentials on the affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted SNMP packet to an affected device over IPv4 or IPv6 networks. This vulnerability is due to a stack overflow condition in the SNMP subsystem of the affected software. A successful exploit could allow a low-privileged attacker to cause the affected system to reload, resulting in a DoS condition, or allow a high-privileged attacker to execute arbitrary code as the root user and obtain full control of the affected system. Note: This vulnerability affects all versions of SNMP.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-20352: 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
High · 7.7 / 10

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

Over the internetAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appSerious impact
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 requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • 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 impactNo data is exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.
    None
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

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

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2025-09-24
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-09-29
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild

Social

2026-10-21: 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 posts2026-11-03: 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)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. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

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.