CVE-2015-6260
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 NX-OS 7.1(1)N1(1) on Nexus 5500, 5600, and 6000 devices does not properly validate PDUs in SNMP packets, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (SNMP application restart) via a crafted packet, aka Bug ID CSCut84645.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability exists in Cisco NX-OS 7.1(1)N1(1) on Nexus 5500, 5600, and 6000 switches where the SNMP implementation fails to properly validate PDUs in incoming SNMP packets. A remote attacker can send a specially crafted SNMP packet that triggers a restart of the SNMP application, causing 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< 2.50\(aazi.0\)c0CVSS 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 device model and OS versionRun 'show version' or 'show inventory' commands on the Nexus switch to confirm it is a Nexus 5500, 5600, or 6000 series. Check the NX-OS version with 'show version | include NXOS'Affected if The device is a Nexus 5500, 5600, or 6000 series running NX-OS version 7.1(1)N1(1)
-
Confirm SNMP is enabledRun 'show snmp' to check if SNMP is enabled on the deviceAffected if SNMP is currently enabled on the switch
-
Check the specific NX-OS version stringRun 'show version' and locate the exact NX-OS version release string (for example, 7.1(1)N1(1) or similar 7.1(1)N1 variants)Affected if The NX-OS version is 7.1(1)N1(1) exactly, as this is the specific version cited in the CVE
-
Verify SNMPv1/v2c community strings are configuredRun 'show snmp community' to see if read-only or read-write community strings are configuredAffected if SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c communities are configured, as these are the protocols affected by the improper PDU validation
-
Check if SNMP service is exposed to untrusted networksReview the management interface configuration and ACLs applied to SNMP with 'show run snmp' and check which IP addresses can reach the SNMP serviceAffected if SNMP is accessible from untrusted or management networks beyond the local administration segment
A Nexus 5500, 5600, or 6000 switch running NX-OS 7.1(1)N1(1) with SNMP enabled and accessible is affected by this vulnerability.
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 data2.50
Restrict SNMP access to trusted management networks/IPs, consider disabling SNMPv1/v2c and using SNMPv3 with authentication and encryption, and apply the vendor patch when available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-6260 — 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-2015-6260 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