CVE-2022-20699 — Cisco Small Business RV Series Routers Stack-based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

CVE-2022-20699 (Cisco Small Business RV160, RV260, RV340, and RV345 Series Routers) is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog since 2022-03-03. A vulnerability in Cisco Small Business RV160, RV260, RV340, and RV345 Series Routers could allow an… See the required fix, due date and…

Exploitation status

CVE-2022-20699 is listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, added 2022-03-03. A vulnerability in Cisco Small Business RV160, RV260, RV340, and RV345 Series Routers could allow an attacker to do any of the following: Execute arbitrary code elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands, bypass authentication and authorization protections, fetch and run unsigned software, or cause a denial of service (DoS).

Advisory facts

Vendor or project
Cisco
Affected product
Small Business RV160, RV260, RV340, and RV345 Series Routers
Added to CISA KEV
2022-03-03
US federal remediation due date
2022-03-17
Ransomware association
Unknown
EPSS score
—
Weakness (CWE)
CWE-785

Remediation: the required action

Apply updates per vendor instructions.

Wording published by CISA for this catalog entry. It is the baseline action, not a decision about your environment: whether this exposure matters for you depends on where the affected component runs, what it is exposed to and who owns it.

From advisory to a decision you can defend

A catalog entry tells you a vulnerability is being exploited somewhere. It does not tell you whether it matters in your estate, who owns the fix, or what evidence an auditor will ask for later. That is the work VulnTrek does: it takes findings from the tools you already run, decides which exposure actually matters, routes it to an owner, keeps remediation human-approved and retains the lineage as evidence.

Sourced from public upstream advisories (CISA KEV, ENISA EUVD, vendor PSIRTs) mirrored daily. Informational only — not a remediation decision, not legal advice, and the absence of a record is not evidence of safety.