Hosted Collaboration SolutionApplication · Cisco

CVE-2014-2122

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2014-03-19
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
Memory leak in the GUI in the Impact server in Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution (HCS) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via unspecified vectors, aka Bug ID CSCub58999.

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 confidence

A memory leak exists in the GUI component of the Impact server in Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution (HCS). Remote attackers can exploit unspecified vectors to trigger excessive memory consumption, leading to denial of service. The vulnerability allows attackers to continuously consume server memory until the system becomes unresponsive.

MitigationApply the vendor patch from Cisco for bug ID CSCub58999 when available. Until then, consider network segmentation to limit exposure and monitor memory usage on affected Impact servers.

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
Hosted Collaboration SolutionApplication
Affected:all versions

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
None
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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. Confirm Cisco HCS installation
    Identify if the system runs Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution by checking for HCS-specific processes, services, or installation directories. Query the system for Cisco HCS components using system inventory tools or check for Cisco HCS-specific services.
    Affected if The system is running any version of Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution (all versions are affected)
  2. Identify Impact server component
    Locate and confirm the Impact server component is installed and running on the HCS system. Check for processes named 'Impact' or related services in the Cisco HCS environment. Review HCS component listings or configuration files that enumerate installed services.
    Affected if The Impact server component is present and running as part of Cisco HCS
  3. Check Impact server GUI accessibility
    Verify whether the Impact server GUI interface is network-accessible. Check firewall rules, listening ports on the system, and access control lists that govern exposure of the Impact GUI service.
    Affected if The Impact server GUI is exposed to network access (this is the attack vector for the memory leak)
  4. Monitor Impact server memory usage
    Use system monitoring tools (such as top, ps, or Windows Task Manager depending on OS) to observe memory consumption by the Impact server process over time. Compare current memory usage against baseline and note if it grows abnormally without release.
    Affected if Memory usage of the Impact server process continuously increases without leveling off, indicating the memory leak is active

A system is affected if it runs Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution with the Impact server component enabled and exposed, exhibiting abnormal memory growth in the Impact server process.

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

Apply the vendor patch from Cisco for bug ID CSCub58999 when available. Until then, consider network segmentation to limit exposure and monitor memory usage on affected Impact servers.

Fix this in Hosted Collaboration Solution Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2122 — 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-2014-2122 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