CVE-2019-1845
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 authentication service of the Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM and Presence (Unified CM IM&P) Service, Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS), and Cisco Expressway Series could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a service outage for users attempting to authenticate, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to insufficient controls for specific memory operations. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malformed Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) authentication request to an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause an unexpected restart of the authentication service, preventing users from successfully authenticating. Exploitation of this vulnerability does not impact users who were authenticated prior to an attack.
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 confidenceA vulnerability in the authentication service of Cisco Unified CM IM&P, TelePresence VCS, and Expressway Series stems from insufficient memory operation controls during XMPP authentication processing. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send malformed XMPP authentication requests that trigger an unexpected restart of the authentication service, causing denial of service for users attempting to log in.
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>= x8.1, <= x12.5.2= 11.5\(1\)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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 installed Cisco productDetermine if the system is running Cisco Telepresence Video Communication Server (VCS), Expressway Series, or Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM and Presence Service. Check system documentation or use CLI commands such as 'show version' on VCS/Expressway or 'utils core management list' on Unified CM.Affected if The product is Cisco Telepresence VCS, Expressway Series, or Unified CM IM&P.
-
Check the installed version against affected rangesRetrieve the software version. For VCS/Expressway, use 'show version' CLI command. For Unified CM IM&P, use the Cisco Unified CM Administration interface or 'utils core management list' command. Compare the version to the affected ranges: VCS/Expressway versions x8.1 through x12.5.2, or Unified CM IM&P version 11.5(1).Affected if The version falls within >= x8.1 to <= x12.5.2 for VCS/Expressway, or equals 11.5(1) for Unified CM IM&P.
-
Verify XMPP service is enabledCheck if the XMPP authentication service is active. For VCS/Expressway, review the XMPP configuration in the administrative interface or check via CLI with commands like 'show xmpp' or review the service status. For Unified CM IM&P, verify the IM and Presence service is running and XMPP is configured.Affected if XMPP authentication service is enabled and running on the system.
-
Assess network exposure of XMPP portIdentify if the XMPP port (typically TCP 5222) is exposed to untrusted networks. Review firewall rules, ACLs, and interface configurations to determine if the XMPP authentication service is reachable from outside the trusted network.Affected if Port 5222 or XMPP service is accessible from untrusted or external networks without proper filtering.
You are affected if you are running a vulnerable version of Cisco VCS/Expressway (x8.1 to x12.5.2) or Unified CM IM&P (11.5(1)) with XMPP authentication service enabled and exposed to the network where an attacker could send malformed XMPP requests.
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 vendor-provided security patches from Cisco for the affected products; until patches are available, consider network segmentation to limit exposure of the XMPP authentication service to untrusted networks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-1845 — 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-2019-1845 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