CVE-2018-0364
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 the web-based management interface of Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack and perform arbitrary actions on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protections for the web-based management interface of an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of the interface to follow a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to perform arbitrary actions on a targeted device via a web browser and with the privileges of the user. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvi44320.
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 confidenceThis is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager's web-based management interface. The interface lacks proper CSRF protection mechanisms (such as anti-CSRF tokens), allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to trick an authenticated user into executing unintended administrative actions via a maliciously crafted link. The attacker's success depends on the victim's active session and privilege level.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Confirm Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager is deployedIdentify systems running Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager in your environment by reviewing installed software, running services, or network scans for the product.Affected if The product is installed and running in the environment.
-
Locate the web management interfaceIdentify the URL and port used to access the Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager web interface (typically HTTPS on ports 443 or 8443). Check network configurations, reverse proxies, or documentation for the management endpoint.Affected if The web management interface is accessible from network locations where users have active sessions.
-
Inspect web forms for CSRF protection tokensLog into the management interface and examine HTML forms (login, configuration, administration pages) using browser developer tools or a proxy. Check if each form submission includes a hidden anti-CSRF token parameter or header.Affected if Forms lack hidden token fields or CSRF-specific token parameters in form submissions.
-
Check session cookie security attributesUsing browser developer tools or a proxy, capture a session cookie from the management interface and inspect its attributes. Look for the SameSite attribute and whether the Secure flag is set.Affected if Cookies lack SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attributes, or the Secure flag is missing.
-
Verify Origin or Referer header validationSubmit a cross-origin request to the management interface using a proxy or script, sending requests from an external domain. Check if the application rejects requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers.Affected if The application accepts and processes requests without validating Origin or Referer headers.
If Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager is deployed with its web management interface accessible and the application lacks CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie attributes, and Origin/Referer validation, the environment is affected by CVE-2018-0364.
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 patch from Cisco (refer to CSCvi44320). Until patched, users should avoid clicking untrusted links to the management interface and administrators should consider network segmentation to limit exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-0364 — 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-2018-0364 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