Desktop Collaboration ExperienceApplication · Cisco
CVE-2013-3399
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in an unspecified Android API on the Cisco Desktop Collaboration Experience DX650 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors that leverage incorrect memory allocation, aka Bug IDs CSCuf93957, CSCug22352, and CSCug22462.
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 confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in an unspecified Android API on the Cisco Desktop Collaboration Experience DX650. The flaw stems from incorrect memory allocation handling, allowing attackers to inject and execute arbitrary code by sending specially crafted requests to the affected device.
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
Desktop Collaboration ExperienceApplication
= dx650CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/I:C/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.
-
Confirm device model is Cisco DX650Access the device's web interface or check the physical device label to verify the model number is exactly 'DX650' or 'Cisco Desktop Collaboration Experience DX650'Affected if Device model is anything other than the DX650, as only this specific model is affected
-
Identify the current firmware versionLog into the device's admin web interface and navigate to Device Information or System Settings to view the firmware/build version, or use the device's CLI command 'show version' if availableAffected if Firmware version cannot be verified as patched - the vulnerability exists in the unspecified Android API on this device
-
Verify network accessibility of the deviceCheck if the device is reachable on the network from untrusted segments, or review firewall rules and access control lists for the device's IP addressAffected if The device is directly accessible from untrusted networks, as the flaw is exploited via specially crafted network requests
-
Check for signs of compromiseReview device logs for unexpected processes, unfamiliar admin accounts, or unusual network connections; also check for any unauthorized configuration changesAffected if Any indicators of unauthorized access or unexpected behavior are present, as the buffer overflow allows arbitrary code execution
The user is affected if they have a Cisco DX650 device with network exposure and cannot confirm the firmware has been patched for the unspecified Android API buffer overflow vulnerability.
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 firmware patch when available; until then, restrict network access to the DX650 device and monitor for indicators of compromise.
Fix this in Desktop Collaboration Experience
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3399 — 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-2013-3399 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