CVE-2024-20310
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 interface of Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service (Unified CM IM&P) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against an authenticated user of the interface. This vulnerability exists because the web-based management interface does not properly validate user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading an authenticated 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 IM & Presence Service web interface due to improper input validation. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by crafting a malicious link that, when clicked by an authenticated user, executes arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface.
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= 10.0\(1\)= 10.0\(1\)su1= 10.0\(1\)su2= 10.5\(1\)= 10.5\(1\)su1= 10.5\(1\)su2= 10.5\(1\)su3= 10.5\(2\)= 10.5\(2\)su1= 10.5\(2\)su2= 10.5\(2\)su2a= 10.5\(2\)su3CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service is installedIdentify whether the Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service is deployed in your environment. This is typically a separate node or service component alongside Cisco Unified Communications Manager.Affected if The product is not present in your environment, the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Determine the installed version of IM & Presence ServiceUse the appropriate method to retrieve the installed version number of the Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service. This may be available via the Cisco Unified Communications Manager administrative interface, CLI, or system inventory.Affected if You cannot retrieve a version number, making it impossible to determine if you are running an affected version.
-
Compare your version against the affected listMatch your installed version against the following affected versions: 10.0(1), 10.0(1)su1, 10.0(1)su2, 10.5(1), 10.5(1)su1, 10.5(1)su2, 10.5(1)su3, 10.5(2), 10.5(2)su1, 10.5(2)su2, 10.5(2)su2a, 10.5(2)su3Affected if Your installed version matches one of these specific versions, indicating you are running a vulnerable release.
-
Verify the web interface is accessibleDetermine whether the web interface for IM & Presence Service is exposed and accessible to users or attackers. This vulnerability requires the web interface to be reachable.Affected if The web interface is disabled or not accessible, the XSS flaw cannot be triggered even on a vulnerable version.
-
Assess user access to the web interfaceIdentify whether authenticated users have access to the IM & Presence Service web interface. The attack requires a malicious link to be clicked by an authenticated user.Affected if No authenticated users have access to the web interface, the exploitation vector is not present.
You are affected if Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service is installed, your version matches one of the 12 listed affected versions, and the web interface is accessible to authenticated users who could click a malicious link.
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 the vendor patch from Cisco when available. Until then, user awareness training to avoid clicking untrusted links and monitoring for suspicious activity is recommended.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20310 — 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-2024-20310 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