Spa300 FirmwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2016-1469
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 · uneditedThe HTTP framework on Cisco SPA300, SPA500, and SPA51x devices allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device outage) via a series of malformed HTTP requests, aka Bug ID CSCut67385.
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 confidenceA denial of service vulnerability exists in the HTTP framework of Cisco SPA300, SPA500, and SPA51x series IP phones. Remote attackers can send a series of malformed HTTP requests to cause the device to crash and become unavailable, requiring manual reboot or power cycle to restore functionality.
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
Spa300 FirmwareOperating system
<= 7.5.7\(6\)
Spa500 FirmwareOperating system
<= 7.5.7\(6\)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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/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 IP phone modelAccess the device web interface or check the physical device label to confirm the model number is SPA300, SPA500, or SPA51x seriesAffected if The device is a Cisco SPA300, SPA500, or SPA51x series IP phone
-
Determine the installed firmware versionLog into the device administration web interface and navigate to the Admin > Firmware Version or Status page to view the current firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is 7.5.7(6) or earlier on SPA300 or SPA500 series, or falls within the SPA51x affected range if applicable
-
Verify if HTTP management interface is enabledIn the device web interface, go to Admin > Advanced > HTTP Server or Web Server settings and check if HTTP (port 80) or HTTPS access is enabled for managementAffected if HTTP management interface is enabled and accessible to network attackers
-
Check network exposure of the HTTP serviceReview firewall rules, ACLs, or network segmentation to determine if the device HTTP management port is exposed to untrusted networks or the internetAffected if The HTTP management interface is reachable from untrusted network segments or the internet
The environment is affected if the device is a Cisco SPA300, SPA500, or SPA51x series with firmware version 7.5.7(6) or earlier and the HTTP management interface is enabled and accessible to potential attackers.
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 dataRestrict network access to the HTTP management interface using firewalls or ACLs. Check with Cisco for available firmware updates; note that older SPA300/500 series devices may be end-of-life with no patch available.
Fix this in Spa300 Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1469 — 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-2016-1469 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