iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2008-3810
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCisco IOS 12.2 and 12.4, when NAT Skinny Call Control Protocol (SCCP) Fragmentation Support is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via segmented SCCP messages, aka CSCsg22426, a different vulnerability than CVE-2008-3811.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThis is a denial of service vulnerability in Cisco IOS 12.2 and 12.4 where specially crafted segmented SCCP (Skinny Call Control Protocol) messages can cause the device to reload when NAT SCCP Fragmentation Support is enabled. The attack is remote and requires no authentication.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
iOSOperating system
= 12.4md= 12.4mr= 12.4sw= 12.4t= 12.4xc= 12.4xe= 12.4xf= 12.4xg= 12.4xj= 12.4xk= 12.4xl= 12.4xmCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Cisco IOS versionRun 'show version' on the device and note the IOS release number (for example, the line starting with 'Cisco IOS Software' or 'IOS (tm)' which shows the version like 12.4(x) or 12.2(x)'). Compare this version string to the affected versions: 12.4md, 12.4mr, 12.4sw, 12.4t, 12.4xc, 12.4xe, 12.4xf, 12.4xg, 12.4xj, 12.4xk, 12.4xl, 12.4xm.Affected if The installed IOS version exactly matches one of the listed affected versions (note: version equality operators mean only those specific releases are affected, not the entire 12.4 family).
-
Verify NAT SCCP Fragmentation Support is enabledExamine the current device configuration for NAT SCCP-related settings. Look for configuration statements that enable SCCP NAT functionality or SCCP fragmentation. This may appear under voice service configuration, NAT configuration, or SCCP-specific settings. Use 'show running-config' and search for keywords such as 'sccp', 'nat sccp', or 'sccp fragmentation'.Affected if NAT SCCP Fragmentation Support is explicitly configured and enabled in the device configuration.
The device is affected only if it runs an affected Cisco IOS version (exact matches to 12.4md, 12.4mr, 12.4sw, 12.4t, 12.4xc, 12.4xe, 12.4xf, 12.4xg, 12.4xj, 12.4xk, 12.4xl, or 12.4xm) AND has NAT SCCP Fragmentation Support enabled in the configuration.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataDisable NAT SCCP Fragmentation Support if not required, or upgrade to a patched Cisco IOS version that addresses this vulnerability.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3810 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-3810 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data