Unity ConnectionApplication · Cisco

CVE-2015-6408

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2015-12-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
77/100
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
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Cisco Unity Connection 11.5(0.98) allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users, aka Bug ID CSCux24578.

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

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Cisco Unity Connection version 11.5(0.98) allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests. The attacker can potentially perform unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim without the user's knowledge.

MitigationApply the vendor patch from Cisco for bug ID CSCux24578 to address the missing or insufficient CSRF tokens in Cisco Unity Connection 11.5(0.98). Implement SameSite cookie attributes and validate the Referer header as additional defense-in-depth measures until the patch is applied.

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
Unity ConnectionApplication
Affected:= 11.5\(0.98\)

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
M
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

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

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 Unity Connection version
    Access the Cisco Unity Connection administration web interface and navigate to the About page or check the version information in the system dashboard. Alternatively, use the CLI command 'show version' or 'utils system version' if you have SSH access to the Unity Connection server.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 11.5(0.98)
  2. Verify CSRF token implementation
    Inspect the HTML forms in the Cisco Unity Connection web interface by viewing the page source. Look for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens in form submissions, typically hidden input fields with names related to security tokens or session validation.
    Affected if Forms lack CSRF tokens or use insufficient token validation mechanisms
  3. Check SameSite cookie attributes
    Using browser developer tools, inspect the cookies set by the Cisco Unity Connection web application. Examine the Set-Cookie headers to determine if the SameSite attribute is configured on session cookies.
    Affected if SameSite attribute is missing or not set to 'Strict' or 'Lax' on authentication cookies
  4. Confirm Referer header validation
    Review Cisco Unity Connection security configuration settings in the administration interface or check the web server configuration files for Referer header validation rules.
    Affected if Referer header validation is not enforced for cross-origin requests

If Cisco Unity Connection version 11.5(0.98) is installed AND CSRF protections (tokens, SameSite cookies, Referer validation) are missing or insufficient, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2015-6408.

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 from Cisco for bug ID CSCux24578 to address the missing or insufficient CSRF tokens in Cisco Unity Connection 11.5(0.98). Implement SameSite cookie attributes and validate the Referer header as additional defense-in-depth measures until the patch is applied.

Fix this in Unity Connection Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,640
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-6408 — 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-2015-6408 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