Spa112 FirmwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2019-15249
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 · uneditedMultiple vulnerabilities in Cisco SPA100 Series Analog Telephone Adapters (ATAs) could allow an authenticated, adjacent attacker to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges. The vulnerabilities are due to improper validation of user-supplied input to the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by authenticating to the web-based management interface and sending crafted requests to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges. Note: The web-based management interface is enabled by default.
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 confidenceImproper input validation in the web-based management interface of Cisco SPA100 Series Analog Telephone Adapters allows an authenticated, adjacent attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code with root/elevated privileges via crafted HTTP requests.
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
Spa112 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.1= 1.4.1
Spa122 FirmwareOperating system
< 1.4.1= 1.4.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 the device modelLocate the device physically or access its web management interface to confirm the model number is Cisco SPA112 or SPA122. The model is typically printed on a label on the device or shown in the web interface header or status page.Affected if The device is a Cisco SPA112 or SPA122 model.
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the web-based management interface (typically via HTTP to the device's IP address) and navigate to the Administration or Status page to view the firmware version. Compare this version to 1.4.1.Affected if The firmware version is less than 1.4.1 OR equal to 1.4.1.
-
Confirm the web management interface is enabledLog into the web interface and navigate to the Administration or System settings. Look for a setting related to 'Web Server' or 'HTTP/HTTPS Access' and verify it is enabled. Alternatively, perform a port scan (e.g., nmap) against the device IP on ports 80 and 443 to confirm the web interface is listening.Affected if The web-based management interface is accessible via HTTP or HTTPS.
-
Assess network accessibility of the management interfaceDetermine whether the web management interface is reachable from network segments that include untrusted or adjacent users. Check router/firewall ACLs, VLAN segmentation, or the device's 'WAN' or 'LAN' interface binding settings to see if the interface is exposed beyond the trusted local network.Affected if The web management interface is accessible from network segments beyond the trusted administrative LAN, or its accessibility cannot be confirmed as restricted.
A user is affected if they have a Cisco SPA112 or SPA122 device running firmware version 1.4.1 or below, with the web management interface enabled and accessible to adjacent attackers on the network.
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 data1.4.1
Apply Cisco firmware updates when available; if no patch exists, restrict access to the web management interface through network segmentation, ACLs, or disabling the interface entirely.
Fix this in Spa112 Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-15249 — 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-2019-15249 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