Unified MeetingplaceApplication · Cisco

CVE-2015-0764

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2015-06-04
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
Cisco Unified MeetingPlace 8.6(1.9) allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a crafted resource request, aka Bug ID CSCus95603.

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

Cisco Unified MeetingPlace version 8.6(1.9) contains a path traversal vulnerability allowing remote attackers to read arbitrary files on the server via crafted resource requests. This is a classic directory traversal vulnerability where insufficient input validation on file path parameters permits using sequences like '../' to access files outside the intended web root directory.

MitigationApply the vendor patch for CSCus95603 or upgrade to a patched version of Cisco Unified MeetingPlace. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to block path traversal patterns in incoming requests.

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
Unified MeetingplaceApplication
Affected:= 8.6\(1.9\)

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
Partial
Integrity
None
Availability
None

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N

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. Identify Cisco Unified MeetingPlace version
    Locate the installed version of Cisco Unified MeetingPlace by checking the application management interface, system information page, or by querying the system via the administrative CLI if available. Common locations include the About page in the web UI or the version information in the system configuration.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.6(1.9)
  2. Confirm web service is running
    Verify that the Cisco Unified MeetingPlace web service is active and listening on its configured ports (typically HTTP port 80/443 or the MeetingPlace web port). Use commands like 'netstat' or 'ss' to check for listening processes, or access the login page via a web browser.
    Affected if The web service is running and accessible on the network
  3. Verify web interface accessibility
    Attempt to access the Cisco Unified MeetingPlace login or resource endpoints from a client system to confirm the web interface is network-reachable. This may include checking firewall rules or network ACLs that permit access to the web server.
    Affected if The web interface is exposed and accepts HTTP/HTTPS requests
  4. Check for path traversal input points
    Identify if the application accepts file path parameters in URL requests or form inputs that could be manipulated for directory traversal. This typically involves reviewing the application's request handling for parameters that accept filenames or paths.
    Affected if The application accepts user-supplied path parameters without validation

The environment is affected if Cisco Unified MeetingPlace version 8.6(1.9) is installed with its web interface accessible and the application accepts unvalidated path parameters in requests.

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 for CSCus95603 or upgrade to a patched version of Cisco Unified MeetingPlace. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to block path traversal patterns in incoming requests.

Fix this in Unified Meetingplace Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0764 — 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-2015-0764 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