CVE-2025-20277
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 CCX could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary code on an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid administrative credentials. This vulnerability is due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory (path traversal). An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted web request to an affected device, followed by a specific command through an SSH session. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the underlying operating system of an affected device as a low-privilege user. A successful exploit could also allow the attacker to undertake further actions to elevate their privileges to root.
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 confidenceThis path traversal vulnerability in Cisco Unified CCX's web-based management interface allows an authenticated attacker to write files to restricted directories via crafted web requests. When combined with a follow-up command through an SSH session, this enables arbitrary code execution as a low-privilege user, with potential for root privilege escalation.
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= 8.5\(1\)= 9.0\(2\)su3es04= 10.0\(1\)su1= 10.0\(1\)su1es04= 10.5\(1\)= 10.5\(1\)su1= 10.5\(1\)su1es10= 10.6\(1\)= 10.6\(1\)su1= 10.6\(1\)su2= 10.6\(1\)su2es04= 10.6\(1\)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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/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 the installed Cisco Unified CCX versionLog into the Cisco Unified CCX administration interface and navigate to Cisco Unified CCX > About, or use the CLI command 'show version' via SSH to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if The version matches any of these: 8.5(1), 9.0(2)su3es04, 10.0(1)su1, 10.0(1)su1es04, 10.5(1), 10.5(1)su1, 10.5(1)su1es10, 10.6(1), 10.6(1)su1, 10.6(1)su2, 10.6(1)su2es04, or 10.6(1)su3
-
Confirm the web-based management interface is enabledVerify that the Cisco Unified CCX web interface (typically on port 8443 or 443) is accessible and running. Check the service status via CLI with 'utils service list' or review the web server configurationAffected if The web management interface is exposed and accessible to the attacker (even internally)
-
Review web server logs for path traversal patternsExamine the Apache or Tomcat logs in /opt/cisco/.. logs or /var/log/httpd/ for unusual requests containing sequences like '../' or encoded path traversal payloads targeting restricted directoriesAffected if Logs show anomalous requests with directory traversal patterns, especially from authenticated sessions
-
Audit file system for unauthorized files in web directoriesCheck the web root directories (typically under /opt/cisco/uccx/.. for newly created or modified files, particularly in restricted directories that should not be writable via the web interfaceAffected if Unexpected files appear in web-accessible directories or restricted system directories that were not placed there by administrators
A system is affected if it runs any of the listed Cisco Unified CCX versions AND has the web-based management interface exposed, regardless of whether exploitation has occurred yet.
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 when available; limit administrative access to trusted personnel and monitor for unusual web requests followed by SSH commands.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20277 — 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-2025-20277 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