Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-20100 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance Software. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 21th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-20100 is a vulnerability in the LUA interpreter of the Remote Access SSL VPN feature in Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software. The issue stems from trusting user input without validation, which could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with a valid VPN connection to cause the device to reload unexpectedly, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. This vulnerability does not affect the management or MUS interfaces and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.7 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H), mapped to CWE-120 (Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input).
An attacker must possess a valid VPN connection to the Remote Access SSL VPN server to exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets. Successful exploitation leads to an unexpected device reload, disrupting services and creating a DoS condition on the affected firewall.
The Cisco Security Advisory provides details on mitigation and patch information at https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-asaftd-vpn-m9sx6MbC.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9439
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in the LUA interperter of the Remote Access SSL VPN feature of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with a valid VPN connection…
more
to cause the device to reload unexpectedly, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. This does not affect the management or MUS interfaces. This vulnerability is due to trusting user input without validation in the LUA interprerter. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets to the Remote Access SSL VPN server. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to reload, resulting in a DoS condition.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.