Unity ConnectionApplication · Cisco
CVE-2012-3060
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 Unity Connection (UC) 8.6, 9.0, and 9.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via malformed UDP packets, aka Bug ID CSCtz76269.
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 confidenceCisco Unity Connection versions 8.6, 9.0, and 9.5 contain a vulnerability where malformed UDP packets sent to the system cause excessive CPU consumption, resulting in denial of service. The attack is network-based, requires no authentication, and can be exploited remotely.
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
Unity ConnectionApplication
= 8.6= 9.0= 9.5CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Cisco Unity Connection is installedIdentify whether the target system is running Cisco Unity Connection by reviewing system inventory, installed software, or network services documentationAffected if The system is running Cisco Unity Connection
-
Check installed Unity Connection versionRetrieve the installed version of Cisco Unity Connection and compare it against the affected versions: 8.6, 9.0, and 9.5Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.6, 9.0, or 9.5
-
Verify UDP services are exposedDetermine if UDP ports on the Unity Connection server are accessible from the network using port scanning or reviewing firewall rulesAffected if UDP services are listening and reachable from untrusted networks
-
Assess network exposureReview network access controls to determine if the Unity Connection server can be reached directly from external or untrusted networksAffected if The server is directly accessible from the internet or untrusted networks without filtering
The environment is affected if Cisco Unity Connection versions 8.6, 9.0, or 9.5 are installed and the UDP interface is network-accessible to untrusted sources.
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 Cisco patch for bug ID CSCtz76269 or upgrade to a supported Unity Connection version. If patching is not immediately possible, implement network-level filtering or rate limiting for UDP traffic destined for the Unity Connection server.
Fix this in Unity Connection
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3060 — 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-2012-3060 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