Unified Customer Voice PortalApplication · Cisco
CVE-2013-1224
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in the Resource Manager in Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal (CVP) Software before 9.0.1 ES 11 allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files via a crafted (1) HTTP or (2) HTTPS request that triggers incorrect parameter validation, aka Bug ID CSCub38369.
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 directory traversal vulnerability exists in the Resource Manager component of Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal (CVP). Remote attackers can craft malicious HTTP/HTTPS requests with specially crafted file paths to overwrite arbitrary files on the server due to insufficient parameter validation. This allows unauthorized file system access with the privileges of the web 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
Unified Customer Voice PortalApplication
<= 9.0\(1\)= 3.0= 3.6\(10\)= 4.0= 4.0\(2\)= 4.1= 7.0= 7.0\(2\)= 8.0\(1\)= 8.5\(1\)= 9.0CVSS 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
- Complete
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:C/A:N
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 Unified CVP is installedCheck for CVP installation directory or look for Cisco Unified CVP services on the system. Common paths include C:\CVP or C:\Program Files\Cisco\CVP. On Linux/Unix, check /opt/cisco/cvp or similar.Affected if Cisco Unified CVP software is not present on the system
-
Identify installed CVP versionLocate the version information file or use command line tools. Check the CVP OAMP console, look for version.txt in the installation directory, or run 'cvp versions' from the command prompt if available.Affected if The installed version matches or is older than 9.0(1), or is one of: 3.0, 3.6(10), 4.0, 4.0(2), 4.1, 7.0, 7.0(2), 8.0(1), 8.5(1), or 9.0
-
Determine if Resource Manager is accessibleCheck if the Resource Manager web service is running and exposed. Look for HTTP/HTTPS listeners on ports typically used by CVP (typically 8080, 8443, or configured web service ports). Attempt to access the Resource Manager endpoint, often at /CVP/Server or similar paths.Affected if The Resource Manager web interface is accessible over the network
-
Verify network exposure of CVP servicesReview firewall rules, ACLs, or network configurations that allow access to CVP web services. Check if the CVP server is directly accessible from untrusted networks or the internet.Affected if CVP Resource Manager is reachable from networks outside the trusted internal network
-
Check for signs of exploitation attemptsReview CVP server and web server access logs for directory traversal patterns in HTTP requests, such as '../' or '..\' sequences in file path parameters. Look for unusual or suspicious file access patterns.Affected if Log analysis reveals directory traversal patterns in HTTP requests to CVP services
The system is affected if Cisco Unified CVP is installed with a version at or below 9.0(1) AND the Resource Manager component is network-accessible, allowing remote attackers to craft malicious HTTP requests with traversal sequences to overwrite arbitrary files.
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 CVP Software to version 9.0.1 ES 11 or later to remediate this vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider restricting access to the Resource Manager to trusted networks only via firewall or ACL rules.
Fix this in Unified Customer Voice Portal
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1224 — 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-2013-1224 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