dbcve.org
Videoscape Policy Resource ManagerApplication · Cisco

CVE-2015-4283

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2015-07-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
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 Videoscape Policy Resource Manager (PRM) 3.5.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption, and TCP service outage) via (1) a SYN flood or (2) another type of TCP traffic flood, aka Bug IDs CSCuu35104 and CSCuu35128.

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 Videoscape Policy Resource Manager (PRM) 3.5.4 is vulnerable to denial of service via TCP traffic floods (SYN flood or other TCP flood vectors). The application fails to properly limit or handle excessive TCP connections, leading to CPU and memory exhaustion and eventual TCP service outage.

MitigationApply available Cisco patches for PRM 3.5.4 addressing Bug IDs CSCuu35104 and CSCuu35128. If no patch available, implement upstream network-level rate limiting or firewall rules to filter malicious TCP flood traffic before it reaches the PRM system.

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
Videoscape Policy Resource ManagerApplication
Affected:= 3.5.4

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
Complete

AV:N/AC:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed Cisco PRM version
    Access the PRM administrative interface or check system inventory/ licensing information for the Cisco Videoscape Policy Resource Manager software version. Use the command 'show version' in the PRM CLI if available, or consult the installation documentation for version verification methods.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.5.4 (the only affected version per CVE details)
  2. Confirm PRM TCP services are exposed
    Review network configuration to determine if PRM TCP-based services (such as web UI, API endpoints, or administrative ports) are listening on exposed network interfaces accessible from external networks. Use 'netstat -an' or similar network diagnostic commands on the PRM host.
    Affected if TCP services are listening on public or untrusted network interfaces without upstream filtering
  3. Verify TCP connection rate limiting is configured
    Check PRM configuration files or administrative settings for any built-in TCP connection rate limiting, connection tracking limits, or SYN flood protection mechanisms. Look for settings related to max connections, connection timeouts, or traffic shaping.
    Affected if No rate limiting or connection throttling is configured for TCP services, leaving the system vulnerable to flood-based exhaustion
  4. Check for upstream network filtering
    Inspect firewall rules, ACLs, or network devices (such as load balancers or edge firewalls) positioned before the PRM system to determine if any TCP flood mitigation or rate limiting is applied to traffic destined for PRM.
    Affected if No upstream network-level filtering, rate limiting, or flood protection exists between the internet and the PRM TCP services

A user is affected if they are running exactly version 3.5.4 of Cisco Videoscape PRM with TCP services exposed and without any rate limiting or upstream flood protection configured.

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 available Cisco patches for PRM 3.5.4 addressing Bug IDs CSCuu35104 and CSCuu35128. If no patch available, implement upstream network-level rate limiting or firewall rules to filter malicious TCP flood traffic before it reaches the PRM system.

Fix this in Videoscape Policy Resource Manager 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-2015-4283 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2015-4283 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