CVE-2025-20363

Published Sep 25, 2025

Last updated 4 months ago

CVSS critical 9.0
Cisco ASA
Cisco FTD
SSL

Overview

AI description

Automated description summarized from trusted sources.

CVE-2025-20363 is a vulnerability that affects Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software, Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software, Cisco IOS Software, Cisco IOS XE Software, and Cisco IOS XR Software. It could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker (for Cisco ASA and FTD Software) or an authenticated, remote attacker with low user privileges (for Cisco IOS, IOS XE, and IOS XR Software) to execute arbitrary code on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input in HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP requests to a targeted web service, potentially leading to the execution of arbitrary code as root and complete compromise of the device.

Description
A vulnerability in the web services of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software, Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software, Cisco IOS Software, Cisco IOS XE Software, and Cisco IOS XR Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker (Cisco ASA and FTD Software) or authenticated, remote attacker (Cisco IOS, IOS XE, and IOS XR Software) with low user privileges to execute arbitrary code on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input in HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP requests to a targeted web service on an affected device after obtaining additional information about the system, overcoming exploit mitigations, or both. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code as root, which may lead to the complete compromise of the affected device. For more information about this vulnerability, see the Details ["#details"] section of this advisory.
Source
psirt@cisco.com
NVD status
Analyzed
Products
ios_xr, adaptive_security_appliance_software, ios, ios_xe, firepower_threat_defense

Risk scores

CVSS 3.1

Type
Secondary
Base score
9
Impact score
6
Exploitability score
2.2
Vector string
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Severity
CRITICAL

Weaknesses

psirt@cisco.com
CWE-122

Social media

Hype score
Not currently trending
  1. 🚨 [HIGH] Active exploitation detected: CVE-2025-20363 Exploit in the wild confirmed for CVE-2025-20363 (CVSS null). A vulnerability in the web services of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance... 🔗 https://t.co/RZBhpWnHFz #ZeroDay #ExploitInWild #CyberSecurity

    @ctiwatchcloud

    14 Apr 2026

    157 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  2. In a VPN cyberattack that sent shockwaves through the country and beyond, Cisco recently announced three high-severity vulnerabilities, including CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20362, and CVE-2025-20363.

    @ShieldSure

    13 Nov 2025

    21 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    1 Reply

    0 Quotes

  3. #VulnerabilityReport #ASA Cisco Warns of Critical RCE Flaw (CVE-2025-20363) Affecting Firewall and Router Software https://t.co/GqUpXaJY8G

    @Komodosec

    2 Nov 2025

    69 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  4. Critical Cisco Vulnerabilities Disclosed — CVE-2025-20363 & CVE-2025-20333 impact firewall and VPN systems. Patch now and stay protected with Network Solutions Inc. 👉 https://t.co/AYYu6tm24z #Cisco #CyberSecurity #InfoSec #NetworkSecurity #CVE #Vulnerability

    @NSIguy

    1 Nov 2025

    242 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    1 Like

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  5. JPCERT/CC WEEKLY REPORT 2025-10-08を公開。セキュリティ関連情報は8件。VMware製品などの脆弱性情報や、JPCERT/CCが公開した「Cisco ASA、FTD、IOS、IOS XEおよびIOS XRにおける任意のコード実行の脆弱性(CVE-2025-20363)について

    @jpcert

    8 Oct 2025

    3133 Impressions

    3 Retweets

    9 Likes

    2 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  6. Cisco ASA、FTD、IOS、IOS XEおよびIOS XRにおける任意のコード実行の脆弱性(CVE-2025-20363)について #JPCERTCC (Sep 30) https://t.co/KVkvUQgQ4o

    @foxbook

    30 Sept 2025

    371 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    1 Like

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  7. Actively exploited CVE : CVE-2025-20362,CVE-2025-20333,CVE-2025-20363

    @transilienceai

    30 Sept 2025

    85 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    1 Reply

    0 Quotes

  8. CyberNewsFlash「Cisco ASA、FTD、IOS、IOS XEおよびIOS XRにおける任意のコード実行の脆弱性(CVE-2025-20363)について」を公開。本脆弱性の影響を受ける製品は多岐にわたります。9月26日に公開したCisco製品の脆弱性に関

    @jpcert

    30 Sept 2025

    4911 Impressions

    10 Retweets

    18 Likes

    3 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  9. CVE-2025-20333 CVE-2025-20362 CVE-2025-20363 could be under active exploitation. Patch immediately. Cloudflare is actively monitoring and researching the CVEs, but in the meantime we deployed 2 aggressive rules (default off) for who wants to block access all together.

    @Cloudforce_One

    28 Sept 2025

    848 Impressions

    1 Retweet

    14 Likes

    1 Bookmark

    1 Reply

    1 Quote

  10. تحذير أمني عاجل: كشفت Cisco عن محاولات استغلال تستهدف أجهزة ASA 5500-X وأصدرت 3 ثغرات جديدة: CVE-2025-20333 CVE-2025-20362 CVE-2025-20363 #Cisco #CyberSecurity https://t.co/qShJ8Al5cm

    @Mshoraty

    28 Sept 2025

    197 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    1 Like

    0 Bookmarks

    1 Reply

    0 Quotes

  11. CVE-2025-20333/CVE-2025-20363対応で 9.16.(2) → 9.16(4) にするとHAの挙動が変わっているような気がするな(;´Д`) ちゃんと検証しないとちょっと分からないな(;´Д`)

    @XenCenter

    27 Sept 2025

    76 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  12. 🚨 Critical Cisco CVEs under Active Exploitation For Executives & Admins – beyond Patch & Pray. 🔥 CVE-2025-20333 → RCE via WebVPN ⚡ CVE-2025-20362 → Privilege Escalation 🕵️ CVE-2025-20363 → HTTP Code Execution ➡️ Combined with RayInitiator Bootk

    @stefanab77

    26 Sept 2025

    100 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    1 Like

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  13. 📄 Read the full paper on Zenodo (free): 👉 https://t.co/2MyNVdEOSn 🚨 Critical Cisco CVEs under Active Exploitation 🚨 For Executives & Admins – beyond Patch & Pray. 🔥 CVE-2025-20333 → RCE via WebVPN ⚡ CVE-2025-20362 → Privilege Escalation 🕵️ C

    @stefanab77

    26 Sept 2025

    6 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  14. Threat Insights: Active Exploitation of Cisco ASA Zero Days https://t.co/Sng2ncKtHZ CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20362 and CVE-2025-20363 affect multiple Cisco products, and are being exploited by a threat actor linked to the ArcaneDoor campaign. The post Threat Insights: Active

    @f1tym1

    26 Sept 2025

    28 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  15. Three vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20362, CVE-2025-20363) affecting Cisco ASA and FTD software are under active exploitation. We discuss the lifecycle of zero-day vulnerabilities and the phenomenon of “patch-or-perish.” https://t.co/zTcQCf8hFP https://t.co/sPFvB

    @Unit42_Intel

    26 Sept 2025

    9131 Impressions

    49 Retweets

    121 Likes

    34 Bookmarks

    1 Reply

    1 Quote

  16. Cisco, ASA / FTD / IOS ürünlerinde kritik güvenlik açıklarını duyurdu. Yeni yayınlanan CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20362 ve CVE-2025-20363 açıklıklarından ikisi aktif olarak istismar ediliyor. 🔴 Sistemlerinizi derhal güncelleyin ve yamaları uygulayın. https://t.co/

    @KamCyberTR

    26 Sept 2025

    29 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  17. 🚨Upozorňujeme na sérii kritických zranitelností v Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA), Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) a Cisco IOS, CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20363 a CVE-2025-20362. Zneužití těchto zranitelností může umožnit vzdálenému neautentizovanému útočn

    @GOVCERT_CZ

    26 Sept 2025

    793 Impressions

    3 Retweets

    3 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    1 Quote

  18. シスコ社が重大(Critical)な遠隔コード実行の脆弱性を修正。CVE-2025-20363はファイアウォール製品では認証不要でCVSSスコア9.0、IOS系製品では要認証でCVSSスコア8.5。Secure Firewall ASA, Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD), IOS, I

    @__kokumoto

    26 Sept 2025

    1888 Impressions

    7 Retweets

    16 Likes

    6 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  19. 🟥 CVE-2025-20363, CVSS: 9.0 (#Critical) Cisco Secure Firewall ASA, FTD, XE, and XR. The vulnerability allows remote code execution (as root) due to improper validation of user-supplied input in HTTP requests. Unauthenticated attackers can exploit Cisco ASA and FTD Software,

    @UjlakiMarci

    25 Sept 2025

    5120 Impressions

    3 Retweets

    11 Likes

    10 Bookmarks

    1 Reply

    1 Quote

  20. Cisco ASA & FTD RCE Vulnerability: CVE-2025-20363 A heap buffer overflow in Cisco ASA and FTD (CVE-2025-20363) enables unauthenticated RCE. Patch ASAP to block attackers. For more details, read ZeroPath's blog on this vuln. #AppSec #InfoSec #Cisco https://t.co/wGb4CtmjdS

    @ZeroPathLabs

    25 Sept 2025

    20 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  21. CVE-2025-20363 A vulnerability in the web services of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software, Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software, Cisco IO… https://t.co/yikZYD7Bn4

    @CVEnew

    25 Sept 2025

    211 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

Configurations

  1. Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.CVE-2026-45446
  2. Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.CVE-2026-45445
  3. Issue summary: The CMS_decrypt and PKCS7_decrypt functions are vulnerable to Bleichenbacher-style attack when an attacker is able to provide the CMS or S/MIME messages and observe the error code and/or decryption output. Impact summary: The Bleichenbacher-style attack allows an attacker to use the victim's vulnerable application as a way to decrypt or sign messages with the victim's private RSA key. The attack is possible in 2 variants. 1. The decryption API (CMS_decrypt(), PKCS7_decrypt()) is used without providing the recipient certificate. In this case OpenSSL iterates over every KeyTransRecipientInfo (KTRI) without stopping at the first success. An attacker who authors a message with two KTRI entries — the first one wrapping a real CEK under the victim's public key, the second with an arbitrary probe ciphertext — obtains opportunity to iterate the 2nd KTRI to get a valid PKCS#1 v1.5 padding if the error code of the application is available. That is a Bleichenbacher oracle (Bleichenbacher, CRYPTO '98): an adaptive-chosen-ciphertext side channel from which the attacker decrypts any RSA ciphertext to the victim's key or forges any PKCS#1 v1.5 signature under it. 2. When the decryption API (CMS_decrypt(), PKCS7_decrypt()) is provided with the recipient certificate, and the recipient is not found, a random key is substituted. An attacker who authors a message and is able to compare both error code and the result of the decryption, can mount a Bleichenbacher oracle. We are not aware of any applications that provide a remote attacker an opportunity to mount an attack described in these scenarios. We consider the existence of such application very unlikely, and for this reason this CVE has been evaluated as Low severity. To avoid these attacks, when RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 Key Transport is in use, the invoked EVP_PKEY_decrypt() will use the implicit rejection mechanism described in draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-guidance. In previous OpenSSL releases the implicit rejection was explicitly disabled. The implicit rejection mechanism always returns a plaintext value, the symmetric key. This result is deterministic for the ciphertext and the private key. The length of the decryption result can happen to match the length of the key of the symmetric cipher that was used for the content encryption. When a certificate is not provided, the last RecipientInfo producing a key that looks valid will be used. It may cause getting garbage content on decryption. As a proper way to deal with this a recipient certificate has to be provided to identify the particular RecipientInfo for decryption. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, and 3.4 are not affected by this issue, as CMS and S/MIME processing happens outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.CVE-2026-42768