Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager Restricted Shell Escape Vulnerability
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 31/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.32% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 5.3, NVD 7.8.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager (Cisco Unified CDM) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to escape the restricted shell. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of shell commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by executing crafted commands in the shell. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted shell and access commands in the context of the restricted shell user, which does not have root privileges.
- Published
- Jul 5, 2019
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 23th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-216
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 31 / 40 · 7.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 7.8
- CNA · cisco
- 5.3
- 2.5 point gap
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| cisco | hosted collaboration solution | cpe:2.3:a:cisco:hosted_collaboration_solution |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- cisco hosted collaboration solutionup to 11.5\(3\)pb3 inclusive
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (cisco). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Cisco Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager
- unspecified and later · before 11.5(3)PB4affected
Same product
cisco: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2015-0741Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Cisco Prime Central for Hosted Collaboration Solution (PC4HCS) 10.6(1) and ear27Monitor
- CVE-2015-0750The administrative web interface in Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution (HCS) 10.6(1) and earlier allows remote authenticated users to execu26Monitor
- CVE-2018-0386A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-s25Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2015-6352Oct 30, 2015 · Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager before 10.6(1) provides different error messages for pathname access attempts depending on wheth18Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2015-6404Dec 15, 2015 · Cisco Hosted Collaboration Mediation Fulfillment 10.6(3) does not use RBAC, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive cred16Monitor
- Later →CVE-2019-15968Nov 26, 2019 · Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager Persistent Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-216 · DEPRECATED: Containment Errors (Container Errors)CVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.