Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 1.59% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Cisco RF Gateway 1
Official source article: Cisco CISCO-SA-20171115-RF-GATEWAY-1 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedA vulnerability in the TCP state machine of Cisco RF Gateway 1 devices could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to prevent an affected device from delivering switched digital video (SDV) or video on demand (VoD) streams, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a processing error with TCP connections to the affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of TCP connections to an affected device and not actively closing those TCP connections. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to prevent the affected device from delivering SDV or VoD streams to set-top boxes. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf19887.
A vulnerability in the TCP state machine of Cisco RF Gateway 1 devices could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to prevent an affected device from delivering switched digital video (SDV) or video on demand (VoD) streams, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a processing error with TCP connections to the affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of TCP connections to an affected device and not actively closing those TCP connections. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to prevent the affected device from delivering SDV or VoD streams to set-top boxes. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf19887.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
A vulnerability in the TCP state machine of Cisco RF Gateway 1 devices could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to prevent an affected device from delivering switched digital video (SDV) or video on demand (VoD) streams, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a processing error with TCP connections to the affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of TCP connections to an affected device and not actively closing those TCP connections. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to prevent the affected device from delivering SDV or VoD streams to set-top boxes. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf19887.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-399. Open the MITRE definition for the exact weakness description.
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 16 Nov 2017 · Last source change 5 Aug 2024, 18:36 UTC · CWE-399
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.