CVE-2020-3282
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 Manager, Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition, Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service, and Cisco Unity Connection could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of the affected software. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of the interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive browser-based information.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Session Management Edition, IM & Presence Service, and Cisco Unity Connection web-based management interfaces due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An attacker exploits this by tricking users into clicking crafted malicious links, enabling execution of arbitrary script code in the browser context or theft of sensitive browser-based information.
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>= 10.5\(2\), < 10.5\(2\)su10>= 11.5\(1\), < 11.5\(1\)su8= 12.0\(1\)= 12.5\(1\)>= 10.5\(2\), < 10.5\(2\)su10>= 11.5\(1\), < 11.5\(1\)su8= 12.0\(1\)= 12.5\(1\)>= 10.5\(2\), < 10.5\(2\)su10>= 11.5\(1\), < 11.5\(1\)su8= 12.0\(1\)= 12.5\(1\)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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 installed Cisco Unified Communications Manager versionLog into the Cisco Unified Communications Administration web interface and navigate to About > Version, or access the CLI and run 'show version'Affected if The version is 10.5(2) through 10.5(2)su9, 11.5(1) through 11.5(1)su7, 12.0(1), or 12.5(1)
-
Identify the installed Cisco Unity Connection versionLog into Cisco Unity Connection Administration and navigate to System > Settings > Product Upgrade, or access the CLI and run 'show version'Affected if The version is 10.5(2) through 10.5(2)su9, 11.5(1) through 11.5(1)su7, 12.0(1), or 12.5(1)
-
Identify the installed IM & Presence Service versionLog into Cisco IM & Presence Administration and navigate to About > Version, or check via Cisco Unified Communications Manager CLIAffected if The version is 10.5(2) through 10.5(2)su9, 11.5(1) through 11.5(1)su7, 12.0(1), or 12.5(1)
-
Verify the web-based management interface is enabled and accessibleAttempt to reach the Cisco web management interface via HTTPS on the default ports (typically 8443 or 443), or check service status via CLI command 'show web security'Affected if The web-based management interface is enabled and reachable
-
Assess network exposure of the management interfaceReview firewall rules, access control lists, or network segmentation to determine if the management web interface is exposed to untrusted networks or usersAffected if The management interface is accessible from networks other than trusted administrative subnets
You are affected if any of the installed products (CUCM, IM & Presence, or Unity Connection) match the vulnerable version ranges AND the web-based management interface is accessible to users who could be tricked into clicking malicious links.
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 data10.511.5
Apply the Cisco security patch when available. Until then, restrict access to the management interface to trusted networks only and educate users about avoiding suspicious links.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,592.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3282 — 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-2020-3282 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