iOSOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2009-0471
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the HTTP server in Cisco IOS 12.4(23) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands, as demonstrated by executing the hostname command with a level/15/configure/-/hostname request.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the built-in HTTP server of Cisco IOS 12.4(23) allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into executing arbitrary IOS commands via maliciously crafted HTTP requests. The vulnerability exploits the HTTP server's privilege escalation mechanism (level/15/configure path) that does not validate the origin of configuration commands.
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
= 12.4\(23\)CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Verify Cisco iOS versionRun 'show version' and locate the IOS release number in the outputAffected if The version displayed is exactly 12.4(23)
-
Confirm HTTP server is enabledRun 'show ip http server status' or check the running configuration with 'show running-config | include ip http server'Affected if The output shows 'ip http server' is enabled (not 'no ip http server')
-
Check if HTTPS-only mode is configuredRun 'show running-config | include ip http secure' to see if only secure HTTP is configuredAffected if Only 'ip http secure-server' is present and 'ip http server' is absent (meaning HTTP server is disabled, only HTTPS is enabled)
-
Verify HTTP server management access controlRun 'show running-config | include access-class' to check if ACLs restrict HTTP server access to specific management IPsAffected if No access-class is applied to the HTTP server, meaning it is accessible from any network
You are affected if the device runs iOS 12.4(23) AND the non-secure HTTP server is enabled (ip http server command is present), allowing remote attackers to exploit the CSRF vulnerability through the /level/15/configure path.
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 the Cisco IOS HTTP server using 'no ip http server' command in global configuration, or restrict HTTP/HTTPS access using ACLs. If HTTP management is required, enable only HTTPS via 'ip http secure-server' and disable the non-secure HTTP server.
Fix this in iOS
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0471 — 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-2009-0471 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