CVE-2015-2800
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 user authentication module in Huawei Campus switches S5700, S5300, S6300, and S6700 with software before V200R001SPH012 and S7700, S9300, and S9700 with software before V200R001SPH015 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device restart) via vectors involving authentication, which trigger an array access violation.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability exists in the user authentication module of Huawei Campus switches (S5700, S5300, S6300, S6700, S7700, S9300, S9700). Remote attackers can exploit improper array handling during the authentication process, triggering an access violation that causes the device to restart, resulting in 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<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300<= v200r001c00spc300CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 the switch modelUse the command 'display device' or 'display version' in the device CLI to confirm the model number is one of: S5700, S5300, S6300, S6700, S7700, S9300, or S9700Affected if The device model is any of the listed affected models
-
Determine the firmware versionUse the command 'display version' in the device CLI to view the software version. Look for the version string in the format v200r001c00spc300 or similarAffected if The firmware version is v200r001c00spc300 or any earlier version (lower than v200r001c00spc300)
-
Confirm the authentication module is activeCheck if remote authentication (such as 802.1X, RADIUS, or TACACS+) is configured using 'display current-configuration | include authentication' or 'display radius scheme'Affected if Remote authentication features are enabled, as the vulnerability is exploited through the authentication process
-
Verify the device is network-accessibleConfirm the management interface or authentication service ports are reachable from external networks using ping or port scanningAffected if The device has IP connectivity that allows remote attackers to send authentication requests
The device is affected if it is an S5700, S5300, S6300, S6700, S7700, S9300, or S9700 running firmware version v200r001c00spc300 or earlier, and remote authentication services are accessible.
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 vendor-supplied software updates: V200R001SPH012 or later for S5700/S5300/S6300/S6700, and V200R001SPH015 or later for S7700/S9300/S9700.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2800 — 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-2015-2800 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