Unified Communications ManagerApplication · Cisco

CVE-2013-3402

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2013-07-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
71/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
An unspecified function in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (CUCM) 7.1(x) through 9.1(2) allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unknown vectors, aka Bug ID CSCuh73440.

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 confidence

Command injection vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary operating system commands. The vulnerability affects versions 7.1(x) through 9.1(2) and requires authenticated access, enabling attackers with valid credentials to escalate privileges and execute commands with the privileges of the affected service.

MitigationUpgrade to a Cisco-supported version of CUCM beyond 9.1(2). Until patched, restrict administrative access to trusted IP addresses only and enforce least-privilege user accounts to reduce attack surface.

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
Affected:= 7.1\(2a\)= 7.1\(2a\)su1= 7.1\(2b\)= 7.1\(2b\)su1= 7.1\(3\)= 7.1\(3a\)= 7.1\(3a\)su1= 7.1\(3a\)su1a= 7.1\(3b\)= 7.1\(3b\)su1= 7.1\(3b\)su2= 7.1\(5\)

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
Single
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate the CUCM version number
    Log into the Cisco Unified Communications Manager Administration interface and navigate to About > Version, or use the CLI command 'show version' via SSH to the CUCM server
    Affected if The displayed version falls within 7.1(2a) through 9.1(2), including all listed subversions such as 7.1(3), 7.1(3a), 7.1(5), 8.x, and 9.1(2)
  2. Confirm the specific version string
    Record the exact version string shown (for example, 7.1(3b)su2 or 9.1(2)) and compare it against the list of affected versions provided in the CVE documentation
    Affected if The exact version matches any version from 7.1(2a) through 9.1(2)
  3. Determine if remote administrative access is enabled
    Check the CUCM serviceability page under Cisco Unified Serviceability > Service Activation, or review the IP or host access lists that permit remote administrative connections to the CUCM web interface
    Affected if Remote administrative access (HTTP/HTTPS or SSH) is permitted from untrusted networks or the internet
  4. Verify that user authentication is configured
    Review the CUCM User Management settings and confirm that local database authentication or LDAP integration is active, and check if any user accounts with administrative privileges exist
    Affected if Any authenticated user accounts with administrative privileges are present in the system

You are affected if your installed CUCM version is between 7.1(2a) and 9.1(2) inclusive and the system accepts remote authenticated administrative connections.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to a Cisco-supported version of CUCM beyond 9.1(2). Until patched, restrict administrative access to trusted IP addresses only and enforce least-privilege user accounts to reduce attack surface.

Fix this in Unified Communications Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
40.0 hours of engineering $7,000
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3402 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-3402 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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