CVE-2015-4235
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 Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) devices with software before 1.0(3o) and 1.1 before 1.1(1j) and Nexus 9000 ACI devices with software before 11.0(4o) and 11.1 before 11.1(1j) do not properly restrict access to the APIC filesystem, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain root privileges via unspecified use of the APIC cluster-management configuration feature, aka Bug IDs CSCuu72094 and CSCuv11991.
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 confidenceCisco APIC and Nexus 9000 ACI devices contain an improper access control vulnerability in the APIC cluster-management configuration feature. Authenticated users can exploit insufficient filesystem restrictions to escalate privileges to root, achieving full administrative control of the device.
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= 1.0\(1e\)= 11.0\(1b\)= 11.0\(1c\)= 11.0\(1d\)= 11.0\(1e\)= 11.0\(2j\)= 11.0\(2m\)= 11.0\(3f\)= 11.0\(3i\)= 11.0\(3k\)= 11.0\(3n\)= 11.0\(4h\)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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/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 the installed Cisco APIC or Nexus 9000 firmware versionRun 'show version' or access the APIC admin interface to view the software version. For NX-OS, use 'show version' in EXEC mode.Affected if The version matches exactly 1.0(1e) for APIC, or exactly 11.0(1b), 11.0(1c), 11.0(1d), 11.0(1e), 11.0(2j), 11.0(2m), 11.0(3f), 11.0(3i), 11.0(3k), 11.0(3n), or 11.0(4h) for Nexus 9000 ACI.
-
Confirm the device is running APIC cluster-managementCheck if the APIC cluster-management configuration feature is enabled. In the APIC GUI, navigate to Admin > Cluster Management, or run 'show cluster' on the NX-OS device.Affected if The cluster-management feature is configured and active on the device.
-
Verify if local authenticated user accounts existList local user accounts by running 'show user-account' or checking Admin > AAA > Users in the APIC GUI.Affected if Any local authenticated user account exists on the system (the vulnerability allows any authenticated user to escalate to root).
You are affected if your Cisco APIC runs exactly version 1.0(1e) or your Nexus 9000 ACI runs exactly one of the listed 11.0(x) versions, and the APIC cluster-management feature is configured with at least one authenticated user present.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Cisco APIC software to version 1.0(3o)/1.1(1j) or later, and Nexus 9000 ACI to 11.0(4o)/11.1(1j) or later. Prioritize patching given the CVSS 9 severity and trivial privilege escalation from authenticated user to root.
Cisco APIC: 1.0(3o) or 1.1(1j) or later; Nexus 9000 ACI: 11.0(4o) or 11.1(1j) or later
- Identify the specific Cisco product (APIC or Nexus 9000 ACI) and current software version using 'show version' or the management interface
- For Cisco APIC devices: upgrade to version 1.0(3o) or later, or version 1.1(1j) or later
- For Nexus 9000 ACI devices: upgrade to version 11.0(4o) or later, or version 11.1(1j) or later
- Download the appropriate software from Cisco's official download page (tools.cisco.com) using valid credentials
- Follow Cisco's standard upgrade procedure for APIC/ Nexus 9000 ACI, which typically includes backing up the current configuration
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the vulnerability is resolved by confirming the new version is installed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $7,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4235 — 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-2015-4235 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