CVE-2019-20028
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 · uneditedAspire-derived NEC PBXes operating InMail software, including all versions of SV8100, SV9100, SL1100 and SL2100 devices allow unauthenticated read-only access to voicemails, greetings, and voice response system content through a system's WebPro administration interface.
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 confidenceNEC PBX devices (SV8100, SV9100, SL1100, SL2100) running InMail software have an authentication bypass in the WebPro web administration interface that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to read voicemails, greetings, and voice response system content without any credentials.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 PBX device modelAccess the device console, WebPro interface, or check device labeling to confirm the model is SV8100, SV9100, SL1100, or SL2100Affected if The device model matches one of the four affected models
-
Confirm WebPro web interface is enabledLog into the PBX administrative console or check network ports (typically HTTP/HTTPS on ports 80/443 or vendor-specified ports) to determine if WebPro is accessibleAffected if WebPro interface is enabled and listening on the network
-
Verify InMail software is configuredCheck the PBX system configuration or InMail subsystem status through the administration interface or device consoleAffected if InMail voicemail feature is installed or configured on the device
-
Assess network exposure of WebProReview firewall rules, ACLs, or network segmentation to determine if the WebPro interface is accessible from untrusted networks or the internetAffected if WebPro is reachable from external or untrusted networks without IP restrictions
-
Check for unauthorized voicemail accessReview WebPro access logs or InMail audit logs for any unauthenticated or anomalous requests to voicemail content URLsAffected if Unauthenticated access to voicemail content is observed in logs
A user is affected if they operate any NEC SV8100, SV9100, SL1100, or SL2100 PBX with WebPro and InMail enabled, and the WebPro interface is network-accessible.
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 patches or firmware updates for the affected PBX models; if unavailable, restrict network access to the WebPro administration interface to trusted IP addresses or disable the web interface if not needed.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-20028 — 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-2019-20028 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