Ultra Services Framework Element ManagerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2017-6692
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in Cisco Ultra Services Framework Element Manager could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to log in to the device with the privileges of the root user, aka an Insecure Default Account Information Vulnerability. More Information: CSCvd85710. Known Affected Releases: 21.0.v0.65839.
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 confidenceCisco Ultra Services Framework Element Manager contains an insecure default account that allows an authenticated remote attacker to gain root-level privileges on the affected device. The vulnerability stems from hardcoded or default credentials that persist after initial deployment.
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
Ultra Services Framework Element ManagerApplication
= 21.0.v0.65839CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 version of Cisco Ultra Services Framework Element ManagerLocate the installed version of the software in your environment. This may be found in the product UI under Help or About, via CLI commands like 'show version', or by inspecting system information files or installation directories.Affected if The installed version is exactly 21.0.v0.65839
-
Verify presence of default administrative accountAccess the user management or accounts configuration interface in the Element Manager. Look for administrative accounts that exist beyond those created during your initial setup process.Affected if A default administrative account (commonly named 'admin' or similar) persists in the user database after initial deployment
-
Confirm default credentials remain unchangedAudit user accounts to determine whether the default password for the administrative account has been modified from its original factory default value.Affected if The default administrative account password has not been changed from the hardcoded or default value shipped with the product
You are affected if running version 21.0.v0.65839 of Cisco Ultra Services Framework Element Manager with the default hardcoded credentials still active on the administrative account.
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 dataImmediately identify and change or remove the default administrative account credentials. Disable any unnecessary default accounts and implement a secure credential management policy to prevent reuse of default passwords.
Fix this in Ultra Services Framework Element Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,624.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-6692 — 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-2017-6692 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