CVE-2011-4486
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 Unified Communications Manager (CUCM) with software 6.x and 7.x before 7.1(5b)su5, 8.0 before 8.0(3a)su3, and 8.5 and 8.6 before 8.6(2a)su1 and Cisco Business Edition 3000 with software before 8.6.3 and 5000 and 6000 with software before 8.6(2a)su1 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via a crafted SCCP registration, aka Bug ID CSCtu73538.
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 confidenceA remote attacker can send a specially crafted SCCP (Skinny Call Control Protocol) registration message to affected Cisco Unified Communications Manager devices. This malformed registration causes the device to reload, resulting in denial of service.
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= 6.0= 6.0\(1\)= 6.0\(1a\)= 6.0\(1b\)= 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\(3a\)= 8.6\(1\)= 8.6\(1a\)= 8.6\(2a\)= 8.6.2all versions= 8.5= 8.5\(1\)= 8.6= 8.6\(1\)= 8.6\(1a\)= 8.6\(2\)= 8.6\(2a\)all versions= 8.5\(1\)= 8.5\(1\)su1= 8.5\(1\)su2= 8.5\(1\)su3= 8.5\(1-2011o\)= 8.6\(1\)= 8.6\(1a\)= 8.6\(2\)= 8.6\(2a\)all versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed Cisco productRun 'show version' or access the Cisco Unified Communications Manager administration interface to determine if the device is running Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Business Edition 3000, Business Edition 5000, or Business Edition 6000.Affected if The device is any of these product lines and the version matches the affected ranges.
-
Check the CUCM versionIn the Cisco Unified Communications Manager administration console, navigate to 'About' > 'Version' or run 'utils system version' from the CLI. Compare the displayed version against: 6.0, 6.0(1), 6.0(1a), 6.0(1b), 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).Affected if The installed version exactly matches any of these versions.
-
Check Business Edition 3000 versionAccess the Business Edition 3000 administration interface or run 'show version' from CLI. Compare the version against: 8.6(1), 8.6(1a), 8.6(2a), 8.6.2.Affected if The installed version matches any of these versions, or if running any version of Business Edition 3000.
-
Check Business Edition 5000 versionAccess the BE5000 administration interface or run CLI command to display version. Compare against: 8.5, 8.5(1), 8.6, 8.6(1), 8.6(1a), 8.6(2), 8.6(2a).Affected if The installed version matches any of these, or if running any version of Business Edition 5000.
-
Check Business Edition 6000 versionAccess the BE6000 administration interface or run CLI command to display version. Compare against: 8.5(1), 8.5(1)su1, 8.5(1)su2, 8.5(1)su3, 8.5(1-2011o), 8.6(1), 8.6(1a), 8.6(2), 8.6(2a).Affected if The installed version matches any of these, or if running any version of Business Edition 6000.
-
Verify SCCP service is enabledIn CUCM administration, go to 'System' > 'Service Parameters' and check if the 'Cisco CallManager (SCCP)' service is active. Alternatively, check Device > Device Settings > SCCP General configuration to confirm SCCP is configured.Affected if SCCP is enabled and the version matches the affected ranges listed above.
The environment is affected if SCCP is enabled and the installed Cisco Unified Communications Manager or Business Edition version exactly matches one of the specific affected versions, or is any version of Business Edition 3000/5000/6000.
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 appropriate Cisco software updates: CUCM 7.x/8.x should be updated to 7.1(5b)su5, 8.0(3a)su3, or 8.6(2a)su1 and later; Business Edition 3000 to 8.6.3 or later; BE5000/6000 to 8.6(2a)su1 or later.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4486 — 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-2011-4486 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