CVE-2015-8800
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 · uneditedSymantec Embedded Security: Critical System Protection (SES:CSP) 1.0.x before 1.0 MP5, Embedded Security: Critical System Protection for Controllers and Devices (SES:CSP) 6.5.0 before MP1, Critical System Protection (SCSP) before 5.2.9 MP6, Data Center Security: Server Advanced Server (DCS:SA) 6.x before 6.5 MP1 and 6.6 before MP1, and Data Center Security: Server Advanced Server and Agents (DCS:SA) through 6.6 MP1 allow remote authenticated users to conduct argument-injection attacks by leveraging certain named-pipe access.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is an argument-injection vulnerability in multiple Symantec security products (SES:CSP, SCSP, DCS:SA) allowing authenticated remote users to inject arbitrary arguments through named-pipe access. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of input passed via named pipes, enabling privilege escalation or command manipulation by users with valid credentials.
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= 5.2.9= 6.5.0= 6.6.0= 6.6.0= 1.0= 6.5.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 installed Symantec product versionCheck the product version through Windows registry at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Symantec\ or by running 'sc query' for services like 'Symantec Critical System Protection' or 'SCSP' and examining the binary path version, or check the Add/Remove Programs listingAffected if The version matches exactly 5.2.9, 6.5.0, 6.6.0, or 1.0.x for the specific product lines listed in the affected versions
-
Confirm the vulnerable named-pipe service is runningRun 'sc query' or check Windows services for services related to the installed product (e.g., 'Symantec Critical System Protection' service, 'SCSP' service, or 'DCS:SA' service). Verify the service status is Running.Affected if The service is running and corresponds to an affected version listed in the CVE
-
Check for named-pipe access configurationExamine the product configuration files in the installation directory (typically under C:\Program Files\Symantec\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Symantec\) for named-pipe settings, or check registry keys under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Symantec\ for pipe-related parametersAffected if Named-pipe functionality is enabled or configured in the product configuration
-
Identify users with authenticated access to the systemReview local user accounts or domain users who have valid credentials for the Windows system hosting the Symantec product, using 'net user' or Active Directory user enumerationAffected if Multiple authenticated users exist on the system beyond the administrator account, providing potential attack vectors for the argument injection
Your environment is affected if you are running any of the specific versions listed (5.2.9, 6.5.0, 6.6.0, or 1.0.x) with the named-pipe service enabled and have more than one authenticated user with system access.
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 patches (MP5 for SES:CSP 1.0.x, MP1 for SES:CSP 6.5.0, MP6 for SCSP 5.2.x, MP1 for DCS:SA 6.5/6.6). As a compensating control, limit the number of authenticated users with named-pipe access and monitor for suspicious pipe interaction patterns.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8800 — 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-2015-8800 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