Unified Communications ManagerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2013-1133
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) 8.6 before 8.6(2a)su2, 8.6 BE3k before 8.6(4) BE3k, and 9.x before 9.0(1) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption and GUI and voice outages) via malformed packets to unused UDP ports, aka Bug ID CSCtx43337.
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 confidenceThis CVE describes a denial of service vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (CUCM) where remote attackers can send malformed packets to unused UDP ports, causing excessive CPU consumption and resulting in both GUI and voice service outages. The vulnerability affects CUCM versions 8.6 prior to 8.6(2a)su2, 8.6 BE3k prior to 8.6(4) BE3k, and 9.x prior to 9.0(1). The attack requires network access to the affected system but does not require authentication.
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
= 8.6= 8.6\(1\)= 8.6\(1a\)= 8.6\(2\)= 8.6\(2a\)= 8.6\(2a\)su1= 8.6\(4\)= 9.0\(1\)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
- 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 CUCM versionLog into the CUCM Administration web interface and navigate to System > Server or use the CLI command 'utils system version' to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if The displayed version matches any of the following: 8.6, 8.6(1), 8.6(1a), 8.6(2), 8.6(2a), 8.6(2a)su1, 8.6(4), or 9.0(1)
-
Compare version against affected rangesVerify if the installed version falls within any of these ranges: 8.6 prior to 8.6(2a)su2, 8.6 BE3k prior to 8.6(4) BE3k, or 9.x prior to 9.0(1)Affected if The installed version is earlier than 8.6(2a)su2, earlier than 8.6(4) BE3k for BE3k editions, or earlier than 9.0(1) for the 9.x line
-
Confirm CUCM is network accessible via UDPReview firewall rules and network segmentation to determine if the CUCM server is exposed to untrusted networks on any UDP portsAffected if UDP ports on the CUCM server are accessible from untrusted or external networks without proper filtering
The environment is affected if CUCM is running a version earlier than 8.6(2a)su2, 8.6(4) BE3k, or 9.0(1) and has exposed UDP ports reachable from untrusted networks.
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 by upgrading to CUCM 8.6(2a)su2 or later, 8.6(4) BE3k or later, or 9.0(1) or later. Consider implementing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted networks as an interim measure.
Fix this in Unified Communications Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $7,296.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1133 — 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-2013-1133 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