basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / SonicWall / CVE-2020-5135
CVE-2020-5135 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

SonicWall SonicOS vulnerability

A buffer overflow in SonicOS allows remote attackers to cause denial of service and potentially execute arbitrary code on affected firewalls.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

Remote attackers can exploit this buffer overflow vulnerability without authentication to disrupt firewall availability or gain code execution, posing significant risk to network perimeter security.

CISA KEV Yes · 2022-03-153EPSS 0.26869 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
7 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2022-03-15).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.26869 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: SonicWall, SonicOS. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Size Check — weakness family: Memory safety.CWE assignment from the public NVD record; the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
NVD ↗Reported
02

Who’s exploiting it?

— attribution turns risk into urgency
Attribution not established

No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.

03

Why it matters

— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board
1

Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1

Attacker
I craft a malicious request designed to overflow a buffer in the SonicOS network stack.
Business
Firewall availability is disrupted, blocking legitimate traffic and exposing the network perimeter.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I send the payload to the firewall's exposed network interface without requiring credentials.
Business
The attack bypasses authentication controls, allowing unauthenticated remote exploitation.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I achieve arbitrary code execution on the compromised firewall device.
Business
The attacker gains control of critical network infrastructure, enabling lateral movement and data exfiltration.
04

What to do

— defensible action
  • Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05

Coverage & confidence

— what we know, and what we don’t

Established (cited)

  • KEV listing (CISA)
  • EPSS probability (FIRST)
  • 7 reported-exploitation source(s)
  • CWE weakness mapping (NVD)
  • Catalogued by sonicwall (CNA)
  • Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden

  • No EUVD / GCVE mirror in feed — single-authority dependency for the identifier.
  • EPSS & exposure are time-varying; verify live at the source.
  • Threat-actor attribution not established from feed data — absence of a name is not absence of compromise.
  • No finder/reporter credit recorded in the public CVE entry — the work behind this find is unattributed.
  • Disclosure & credit2
    Catalogued by sonicwallCNA
    Credited with finding itNo finder named in the public CVE record — the work behind this find is unattributed.