CVE-2013-6682
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 phone-proxy implementation in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software 9.0.3.6 and earlier does not properly validate X.509 certificates, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connection-database corruption) via an invalid entry, aka Bug ID CSCui33299.
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 phone-proxy feature in Cisco ASA Software 9.0.3.6 and earlier fails to properly validate X.509 certificates. This allows remote attackers to inject invalid certificate entries that corrupt the connection database, causing a denial of 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<= 9.0.3\(6\)= 7.0= 7.0\(0\)= 7.0\(1\)= 7.0\(2\)= 7.0\(4\)= 7.0\(5\)= 7.0\(5.2\)= 7.0\(6\)= 7.0\(6.7\)= 7.0\(7\)= 7.0\(8\)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
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Check Cisco ASA software versionUse the command 'show version' or 'show running-config' to identify the installed Cisco ASA software versionAffected if The version is 9.0.3(6) or earlier, or is one of the listed 7.0.x versions (7.0, 7.0(0), 7.0(1), 7.0(2), 7.0(4), 7.0(5), 7.0(5.2), 7.0(6), 7.0(6.7), 7.0(7), 7.0(8))
-
Verify if phone-proxy feature is enabledUse the command 'show run phone-proxy' or check the configuration for 'phone-proxy' entriesAffected if The phone-proxy feature is configured and enabled on the ASA
-
Check for connection database corruptionUse the command 'show conn' to view active connections and look for abnormal connection counts or stale entriesAffected if The connection database shows unexpected number of connections, stale entries, or corruption indicators
-
Inspect phone-proxy certificate entriesUse 'show phone-proxy certificate' or examine the certificate database used by phone-proxyAffected if Invalid or unexpected certificate entries are present in the phone-proxy certificate database
-
Review system logs for certificate validation failuresExamine ASA logs (via 'show log' or syslog) for messages related to X.509 certificate validation errors in phone-proxyAffected if Logs contain certificate validation failures or errors related to phone-proxy certificate processing
A user is affected if their Cisco ASA runs an affected version (9.0.3(6) or earlier, or 7.0.x series) AND has the phone-proxy feature enabled, with potential signs of connection database corruption or invalid certificate entries.
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 appropriate Cisco ASA software update that addresses Bug ID CSCui33299. Until the patch can be applied, consider disabling the phone-proxy feature if not required or restricting remote access to trusted sources.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6682 — 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-2013-6682 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