Ironport AsyncosOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2013-3386
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 · uneditedThe IronPort Spam Quarantine (ISQ) component in the web framework in IronPort AsyncOS on Cisco Email Security Appliance devices before 7.1.5-106 and 7.3, 7.5, and 7.6 before 7.6.3-019 and Content Security Management Appliance devices before 7.9.1-102 and 8.0 before 8.0.0-404 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (service crash or hang) via a high rate of TCP connection attempts, aka Bug IDs CSCzv25573 and CSCzv81712.
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 confidenceThe IronPort Spam Quarantine (ISQ) web framework component in Cisco Email Security Appliance and Content Security Management Appliance devices suffers from a denial-of-service vulnerability triggered by a high rate of TCP connection attempts, causing the service to crash or hang.
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
Ironport AsyncosOperating system
<= 7.1.5= 7.3= 7.5= 7.6= 7.9= 8.0CVSS 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
- 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 Cisco appliance typeLog into the device CLI and run the 'show version' command to determine if the device is an Email Security Appliance (ESA) or Content Security Management Appliance (CSMA)Affected if The device is a Cisco ESA or CSMA running the affected AsyncOS versions
-
Check the AsyncOS versionRun the 'version' command or 'show version' in the CLI to obtain the exact AsyncOS firmware version numberAffected if The version is 7.1.5 or lower, or exactly 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.9, or 8.0
-
Confirm IronPort Spam Quarantine is enabledAccess the web interface or run 'ismanage' / 'IsqConfig' in the CLI to verify the ISQ feature is enabled and accessibleAffected if ISQ is enabled and exposed to network access, making it reachable for TCP connection attacks
If the device is a Cisco ESA or CSMA running an affected AsyncOS version (7.1.5 or lower, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.9, or 8.0) with ISQ enabled, the environment is vulnerable to this DoS condition.
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 vendor-provided patches by upgrading to Cisco ESA version 7.6.3-019 or later for 7.3/7.5/7.6 releases, or 7.1.5-106 for 7.1.x releases; upgrade CSMA to 7.9.1-102 or later, or 8.0.0-404 or later for 8.x releases.
Fix this in Ironport Asyncos
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3386 — 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-2013-3386 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