CVE-2013-3402
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 · uneditedAn 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 confidenceCommand 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.
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= 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the CUCM version numberLog 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 serverAffected 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)
-
Confirm the specific version stringRecord 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 documentationAffected if The exact version matches any version from 7.1(2a) through 9.1(2)
-
Determine if remote administrative access is enabledCheck 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 interfaceAffected if Remote administrative access (HTTP/HTTPS or SSH) is permitted from untrusted networks or the internet
-
Verify that user authentication is configuredReview 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 existAffected 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.
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 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.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
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 locallyCheck 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-3402 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