Unified Presence ServerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2013-1137
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 Presence Server (CUPS) 8.6, 9.0, and 9.1 before 9.1.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via crafted packets to the SIP TCP port, aka Bug ID CSCua89930.
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 Unified Presence Server (CUPS) versions 8.6, 9.0, and 9.1 before 9.1.1 contains a denial of service vulnerability where remote attackers can send specially crafted packets to the SIP TCP port, causing excessive CPU consumption and rendering the service unavailable.
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 Presence ServerApplication
= 8.6= 9.0= 9.1CVSS 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 Cisco Unified Presence Server versionAccess the CUPS server admin interface or use CLI command 'show version' or check the installed software package version through the systemAffected if The installed version is 8.6, 9.0, or any 9.1.x version prior to 9.1.1
-
Confirm SIP service is enabledCheck if the SIP service is running on the CUPS server, typically by reviewing active services or checking if port 5060 (default SIP TCP port) is in useAffected if The SIP service is enabled and listening on a TCP port
-
Assess network exposure of SIP portScan or verify which network interfaces and IP addresses the SIP TCP port is bound to, determine if it is reachable from untrusted networksAffected if The SIP TCP port is accessible from external or untrusted networks
-
Monitor for DoS symptomsObserve CPU usage on the CUPS server, particularly for SIP-related processes, and check for service availability issuesAffected if Excessive CPU consumption is observed, particularly in SIP handling processes, or the service becomes unavailable
A user is affected if they run Cisco Unified Presence Server versions 8.6, 9.0, or 9.1 (prior to 9.1.1) with the SIP service enabled and exposed to network traffic.
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 Presence Server to version 9.1.1 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Additionally, implement network-level filtering or intrusion prevention for SIP traffic on the affected TCP port to mitigate exploitation.
Fix this in Unified Presence Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1137 — 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-2013-1137 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