CVE-2019-1867
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 REST API of Cisco Elastic Services Controller (ESC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass authentication on the REST API. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of API requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted request to the REST API. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary actions through the REST API with administrative privileges on an affected system.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote attackers to bypass authentication in the Cisco Elastic Services Controller REST API due to improper validation of API requests. Successful exploitation grants the attacker administrative privileges, enabling execution of arbitrary actions through the API.
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>= 4.1, < 4.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 if Cisco Elastic Services Controller is presentLocate the ESC installation directory or check running services. Common locations include /opt/cisco/esc or checking for processes named 'esc' or 'elastic-services-controller'. Use commands like 'ps aux | grep -i esc' or review installed software packages.Affected if Cisco Elastic Services Controller software is found running or installed on the system
-
Determine the installed versionRun the command 'escadm show version' or check the version file in the ESC installation directory, typically found in /opt/cisco/esc/esc_version or via 'rpm -q elastic-services-controller' if installed via RPM.Affected if The version number is >= 4.1 and < 4.5
-
Verify REST API is accessibleCheck the ESC configuration files (typically in /opt/cisco/esc/conf/ or /etc/esc/conf/) for API endpoint settings. Look for 'rest_api_enabled' or 'api_port' configuration entries. Test connectivity by attempting to reach the API endpoint on the configured port (default 8080 or 8443).Affected if The REST API is enabled and network-accessible (listening on an interface other than localhost)
-
Check API authentication configurationReview the ESC configuration file for 'authentication' or 'auth' settings in the REST API section. Look for entries like 'enable_auth' or similar flags that control whether API authentication is enforced.Affected if Authentication validation is set to disabled or weak validation is configured for the REST API endpoints
A system is affected if Cisco Elastic Services Controller version 4.1 through 4.4.x is installed with the REST API enabled and accessible, allowing potential unauthenticated API access.
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.
dbcve · scoped4.5
Apply the vendor-provided patch for CVE-2019-1867. If no patch is available, restrict network access to the ESC REST API via firewall rules or disable external API access until remediation is possible.
Cisco Elastic Services Controller 4.5 or later
- 1. Identify the current version of Cisco Elastic Services Controller by checking the system or API documentation.
- 2. Verify the current version is >= 4.1 and < 4.5, which confirms the system is vulnerable.
- 3. Plan for upgrade during a maintenance window as the REST API service may require a restart.
- 4. Back up current configuration and any relevant data before proceeding with the upgrade.
- 5. Download Cisco Elastic Services Controller version 4.5 or later from the Cisco software download page.
- 6. Follow the official Cisco ESC upgrade documentation to install version 4.5 or newer.
- 7. After upgrade, verify the REST API is functioning correctly and authentication is properly enforced.
- 8. Test that unauthenticated requests to the REST API are now rejected as expected.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-1867 — 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-2019-1867 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