Unified MeetingplaceApplication · Cisco
CVE-2013-1128
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 cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the server in Cisco Unified MeetingPlace before 7.1(2.2000) allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors, aka Bug ID CSCuc64903. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
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 · moderate confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in Cisco Unified MeetingPlace server versions before 7.1(2.2000) allow remote attackers to hijack victim authentication through unknown vectors. The vulnerabilities reside in the server-side form handling and state-changing operations that lack proper anti-CSRF token validation or referrer checking.
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 MeetingplaceApplication
<= 7.1= 5.4= 6.0= 6.1= 7.0= 7.0.1= 7.0.2= 7.0.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed Cisco Unified MeetingPlace versionAccess the server's administrative interface or check system information files to determine the exact version number of the Cisco Unified MeetingPlace installationAffected if The version number is 5.4, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.0.1, 7.0.2, 7.0.3, or any version 7.1 or lower
-
Verify the web-based management interface is accessibleConfirm that the Cisco Unified MeetingPlace web interface is exposed and reachable on the networkAffected if The web interface is accessible and responds to HTTP/HTTPS requests
-
Inspect HTML forms for anti-CSRF token fieldsLoad the server's web forms in a browser, view the page source, and examine whether each form includes a hidden token field or unique identifier used for CSRF validationAffected if Forms lack hidden anti-CSRF token fields or unique request identifiers
-
Test state-changing operations for CSRF protectionSend a state-changing request (such as a form submission) without the expected Referer or Origin header and observe whether the server accepts or rejects the requestAffected if The server accepts and processes state-changing requests without validating Referer or Origin headers
A user is affected if they run Cisco Unified MeetingPlace version 7.1 or earlier and the web interface lacks anti-CSRF token validation on forms.
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 dataUpgrade Cisco Unified MeetingPlace to version 7.1(2.2000) or later. As a compensating control, implement SameSite cookie attributes on session cookies and validate Origin/Referrer headers on state-changing requests.
Fix this in Unified Meetingplace
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-2013-1128 — 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-2013-1128 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