Ios XeOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2013-6692
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 · uneditedCisco IOS XE 3.8S(.2) and earlier does not properly use a DHCP pool during assignment of an IP address, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (device reload) via an AAA packet that triggers an address requirement, aka Bug ID CSCuh04949.
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 confidenceA vulnerability in Cisco IOS XE 3.8S(.2) and earlier versions allows remote authenticated users to cause device reload (denial of service) by sending a crafted AAA packet that triggers an IP address requirement. The root cause is improper handling of DHCP pool usage during IP address assignment, leading to a fatal error and device reboot.
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
Ios XeOperating system
<= 3.8s\(.2\)= 3.7.0s= 3.7.1s= 3.7.2s= 3.8.0s= 3.8s\(.0\)= 3.8s\(.1\)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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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 Cisco IOS XE versionExecute 'show version' command on the device and locate the IOS XE release string (typically in the format 3.7.xS, 3.8.xS, etc.)Affected if The version number is 3.8S(.2) or earlier, specifically 3.7.0s, 3.7.1s, 3.7.2s, 3.8.0s, 3.8s(.0), or 3.8s(.1)
-
Verify AAA configuration statusExecute 'show running-config | include aaa' or 'show aaa servers' to determine if AAA (Authentication, Authorization, Accounting) is enabled on the deviceAffected if AAA is enabled and configured with authentication methods that allow remote user access
-
Confirm DHCP pool configurationExecute 'show ip dhcp pool' or 'show running-config | include ip dhcp pool' to list configured DHCP address poolsAffected if One or more DHCP pools are configured on the device
-
Check for IP address assignment methodsReview the AAA configuration for any methods or policies that assign IP addresses to users, particularly looking for 'ip address' under AAA authorization or authentication sectionsAffected if AAA is configured to assign IP addresses from DHCP pools during user authentication
The device is affected if it runs Cisco IOS XE version 3.8S(.2) or earlier AND has AAA enabled with IP address assignment configured, allowing remote authenticated users to trigger the DHCP pool handling flaw that causes device reload.
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 Cisco IOS XE to a version beyond 3.8S(.2) that addresses this vulnerability. Additionally, restrict AAA and administrative access to trusted users only to reduce the attack surface.
Fix this in Ios Xe
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6692 — 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-2013-6692 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