Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-20052 is a medium-severity Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer (CWE-788) vulnerability in Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 34th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9458
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in the memory management handling for the Snort 3 Detection Engine of Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the Snort 3 Detection Engine to restart. This vulnerability is due…
more
to a logic error in memory management when a device is performing Snort 3 SSL packet inspection. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted SSL packets through an established connection to be parsed by the Snort 3 Detection Engine. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition when the Snort 3 Detection Engine unexpectedly restarts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover buffer-end violations through static analysis, fuzzing, or dynamic bounds checks.
Security engineering principles require bounds checking, safe arithmetic, and language choices that structurally eliminate post-end buffer accesses.
Input validation enforces bounds on lengths and indices before buffer operations, stopping out-of-bounds accesses after the end of the buffer.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the effects of post-end buffer accesses by blocking unauthorized code execution or data corruption.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require bounds checking and input validation that prevent out-of-bounds buffer accesses.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect buffer-overrun defects before release.
Secure development life cycle includes buffer-handling practices that reduce out-of-bounds accesses.
Application security requirements can mandate bounds checking and safe memory APIs.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe pointer arithmetic and unbounded buffers.
Secure coding standards directly forbid writing or reading past buffer ends.