CVE-2021-42020
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC…
rank 15 = 0 + 13 + 0 + 2 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00985 · without this subject the record ranks 15
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 5.0, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 2
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 15
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
1 product in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 13
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 15
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
This record is one instance of CWE-754, improper check for unusual or exceptional conditions. The index holds 662 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Which product do you run? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Choose your product above to watch it.
Set up a watchlist (free with an account: one stack of three products)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
Or open an investigation: an incident or a near miss on this CVE, kept with its evidence where anyone in your organisation can find it.
Choose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Show full BOD 26-04 deadline
CISA has not scored it, so the directive's own defaults apply: automatable no, technical impact total. Calendar days from the KEV listing or from when you find it on a system, whichever is first. Federal agencies are bound from 7 Dec 2026, and contracts often carry it to suppliers. The directive and its table
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
$30,100 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.6121449559255632 exposure x 0.00985 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Attack path
What it is stated by the CNA
A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM i803NC, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100NC, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200NC, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC30NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RP110NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600FNC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS1600TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400NC, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS401NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000ANC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000HNC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000NC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS8000TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS910NC, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RS969NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RSL910NC, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. The third-party component, in its TFTP functionality fails to check for null terminations in file names. If an attacker were to exploit this, it could result in data corruption, and possibly a hard-fault of the application.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 5 AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
- weakness
- CWE-754
- affected versions
- siemens ruggedcom ros < 5.6.0
- also scored by
- productcert@siemens.com 7.5 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H · nvd@nist.gov 7.5 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
The CNA scored it 7.5 and NVD 5. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself cert-portal.siemens.com cert-portal.siemens.com receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 24 observations
24 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 4 years, 4 months when this index was last written.
The pattern, elsewhere
This record is one instance of CWE-754, improper check for unusual or exceptional conditions. The index holds 662 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. cwe-consequences@4.20
"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1
662 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.
No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
No record cites this identifier and it carries no alias. The advisory that covers it is below.
Fixed with these, by one advisory
Listed because one advisory covers them, not because they are the same defect. Each record's own state is on its own page.
Grouping: held values
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2021-42020.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.