Expressway SoftwareApplication · Cisco
CVE-2014-3369
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 SIP IX implementation in Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) and Expressway Software before X8.1.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted SDP packets, aka Bug ID CSCuo42252.
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 denial of service vulnerability exists in the SIP IX implementation of Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) and Expressway Software versions prior to X8.1.1. Remote attackers can send specially crafted SDP (Session Description Protocol) packets to trigger a device reload, causing service interruption.
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
Expressway SoftwareApplication
<= x8.1
Telepresence Video Communication Server SoftwareApplication
<= x8.1CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/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 product and versionAccess the admin web interface (typically https://<device-ip>) and navigate to Status > System or use CLI command 'version' to display the installed software version.Affected if The displayed version is X8.1 or any version lower than X8.1.1 (for example, X8.0, X7.x, etc.)
-
Confirm product typeCheck if the device is Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) or Cisco Expressway. This is visible in the admin interface header or via 'show system' CLI command.Affected if The device is either Cisco TelePresence VCS or Cisco Expressway running a version <= X8.1
-
Verify SIP IX feature statusIn the web interface, go to Configuration > SIP > IX or use CLI command 'show sip ix' to check if SIP IX (Interworking) is enabled.Affected if SIP IX is enabled on a vulnerable version (X8.1 or earlier)
-
Assess SIP service exposureReview network configuration to determine if UDP/TCP port 5060 (SIP) or port 5061 (SIPS) is accessible from untrusted networks. Check firewall rules and interface bindings.Affected if SIP ports are exposed to external or untrusted networks without filtering
You are affected if the device runs Cisco VCS or Expressway software version X8.1 or earlier AND has SIP IX enabled, with SIP service reachable from untrusted networks.
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 TelePresence VCS and Expressway Software to version X8.1.1 or later to remediate this vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not possible, consider restricting SIP traffic exposure to trusted sources at network perimeter.
Fix this in Expressway Software
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3369 — 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-2014-3369 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