Unified Communications ManagerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2011-1610
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 · uneditedMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in xmldirectorylist.jsp in the embedded Apache HTTP Server component in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (aka CUCM, formerly CallManager) 6.x before 6.1(5)su3, 7.x before 7.1(5)su4, 8.0 before 8.0(3a)su2, and 8.5 before 8.5(1)su1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) f, (2) l, or (3) n parameter, aka Bug ID CSCtj42064.
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 confidenceMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities exist in xmldirectorylist.jsp in the embedded Apache HTTP Server component of Cisco Unified Communications Manager. Remote attackers can execute arbitrary SQL commands via the f, l, or n parameters without authentication, potentially exposing or manipulating sensitive database content.
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
Unified Communications ManagerApplication
= 6.0= 6.1\(1\)= 6.1\(1a\)= 6.1\(1b\)= 6.1\(2\)= 6.1\(2\)su1= 6.1\(2\)su1a= 6.1\(3\)= 6.1\(3a\)= 6.1\(3b\)= 6.1\(3b\)su1= 6.1\(4\)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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
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.
-
Identify the Cisco Unified Communications Manager versionAccess the CUCM administration interface or use the CLI command 'show version' to determine the installed CUCM versionAffected if The installed version matches any of these: 6.0, 6.1(1), 6.1(1a), 6.1(1b), 6.1(2), 6.1(2)su1, 6.1(2)su1a, 6.1(3), 6.1(3a), 6.1(3b), 6.1(3b)su1, or 6.1(4)
-
Verify the web interface is accessibleConfirm that the CUCM web administration interface (HTTPS on port 8443 or similar) is reachable on the networkAffected if The CUCM web interface is exposed and reachable from a network where untrusted actors exist
-
Locate the vulnerable JSP fileCheck for the presence of xmldirectorylist.jsp in the web application's directory structure, typically under the Apache HTTP Server web root for CUCMAffected if The file xmldirectorylist.jsp exists on the CUCM server
-
Test for the SQL injection vulnerabilitySend an HTTP GET request to xmldirectorylist.jsp with malicious SQL payloads in the f, l, or n parameters, for example: /xmldirectorylist.jsp?f=test' OR '1'='1Affected if The server returns database error messages or unexpected SQL-related responses indicating the input is not properly sanitized
You are affected if your CUCM version is 6.0 through 6.1(4) and the web interface with the vulnerable xmldirectorylist.jsp is accessible from your network.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied patches: upgrade to CUCM 6.1(5)su3, 7.1(5)su4, 8.0(3a)su2, or 8.5(1)su1 or later. If patching is not immediately feasible, consider restricting network access to the affected CUCM management interfaces.
Fix this in Unified Communications Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1610 — 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-2011-1610 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