Show filters
23 Total Results
Displaying 11-20 of 23
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-1160

Disclosure Date: April 09, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA) 5500 Series and PIX Security Appliances 7.0 before 7.0(8)1, 7.1 before 7.1(2)74, 7.2 before 7.2(4)9, and 8.0 before 8.0(4)5 do not properly implement the implicit deny statement, which might allow remote attackers to successfully send packets that bypass intended access restrictions, aka Bug ID CSCsq91277.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-3816

Disclosure Date: October 23, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Unspecified vulnerability in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA) 5500 Series and PIX Security Appliances 7.2(4)9 and 7.2(4)10 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via a crafted IPv6 packet.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-2733

Disclosure Date: September 04, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Cisco PIX and Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) 5500 devices 7.2 before 7.2(4)2, 8.0 before 8.0(3)14, and 8.1 before 8.1(1)4, when configured as a client VPN endpoint, do not properly process IPSec client authentication, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via a crafted authentication attempt, aka Bug ID CSCso69942.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-2732

Disclosure Date: September 04, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the SIP inspection functionality in Cisco PIX and Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) 5500 devices 7.0 before 7.0(7)16, 7.1 before 7.1(2)71, 7.2 before 7.2(4)7, 8.0 before 8.0(3)20, and 8.1 before 8.1(1)8 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via unknown vectors, aka Bug IDs CSCsq07867, CSCsq57091, CSCsk60581, and CSCsq39315.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-2055

Disclosure Date: June 04, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) and Cisco PIX security appliance 7.1.x before 7.1(2)70, 7.2.x before 7.2(4), and 8.0.x before 8.0(3)10 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted TCP ACK packet to the device interface.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-2057

Disclosure Date: June 04, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
The Instant Messenger (IM) inspection engine in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) and Cisco PIX security appliance 7.2.x before 7.2(4), 8.0.x before 8.0(3)10, and 8.1.x before 8.1(1)2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted packet.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2008-2058

Disclosure Date: June 04, 2008 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) and Cisco PIX security appliance 7.2.x before 7.2(3)2 and 8.0.x before 8.0(2)17 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via a port scan against TCP port 443 on the device.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2007-5569

Disclosure Date: October 18, 2007 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Cisco PIX and ASA appliances with 7.1 and 7.2 software, when configured for TLS sessions to the device, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via a crafted TLS packet, aka CSCsg43276 and CSCsh97120.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2007-2461

Disclosure Date: May 02, 2007 (last updated October 04, 2023)
The DHCP relay agent in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) and PIX 7.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (dropped packets) via a DHCPREQUEST or DHCPINFORM message that causes multiple DHCPACK messages to be sent from DHCP servers to the agent, which consumes the memory allocated for a local buffer. NOTE: this issue only occurs when multiple DHCP servers are used.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2006-3906

Disclosure Date: July 27, 2006 (last updated July 03, 2024)
Internet Key Exchange (IKE) version 1 protocol, as implemented on Cisco IOS, VPN 3000 Concentrators, and PIX firewalls, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource exhaustion) via a flood of IKE Phase-1 packets that exceed the session expiration rate. NOTE: it has been argued that this is due to a design weakness of the IKE version 1 protocol, in which case other vendors and implementations would also be affected.
0