CVE-2017-6779

N/A
Published: June 7, 2018 at 12:00 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 01:23 AM UTC
13 products affected across 1 vendorUnified Communications ManagerUnity ConnectionUnified Contact Center Express

Using Multiple Cisco Products unknown by N/A?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Multiple Cisco Products unknown - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Multiple Cisco products are affected by a vulnerability in local file management for certain system log files of Cisco collaboration products that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause high disk utilization, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability occurs because a certain system log file does not have a maximum size restriction. Therefore, the file is allowed to consume the majority of available disk space on the appliance. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted remote connection requests to the appliance. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to increase the size of a system log file so that it consumes most of the disk space. The lack of available disk space could lead to a DoS condition in which the application functions could operate abnormally, making the appliance unstable. This vulnerability affects the following Cisco Voice Operating System (VOS)-based products: Emergency Responder, Finesse, Hosted Collaboration Mediation Fulfillment, MediaSense, Prime License Manager, SocialMiner, Unified Communications Manager (UCM), Unified Communications Manager IM and Presence Service (IM&P - earlier releases were known as Cisco Unified Presence), Unified Communication Manager Session Management Edition (SME), Unified Contact Center Express (UCCx), Unified Intelligence Center (UIC), Unity Connection, Virtualized Voice Browser. This vulnerability also affects Prime Collaboration Assurance and Prime Collaboration Provisioning. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvd10872, CSCvf64322, CSCvf64332, CSCvi29538, CSCvi29543, CSCvi29544, CSCvi29546, CSCvi29556, CSCvi29571, CSCvi31738, CSCvi31741, CSCvi31762, CSCvi31807, CSCvi31818, CSCvi31823.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

10.5 ≤ v < 10.5(1a)11.0 ≤ v < 11.5(4)12.0 ≤ v < 12.0su111.0(1.10000.10)
Affected range stops below 10.5(1a), so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.5(4), so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 12.0su1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.5 ≤ v < 11.5(3)9.5(1)
Affected range stops below 11.5(3), so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.5 ≤ v < 11.5(3)9.5(1)
Affected range stops below 11.5(3), so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.5 ≤ v < 11.5su29.5(1)
Affected range stops below 11.5su2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.6 ≤ v < 11.6_es1612.1 ≤ v < 12.1_es2
Affected range stops below 11.6_es16, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 12.1_es2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
10.5 ≤ v < 10.5.211.0 ≤ v < 11.5(1)su5
Affected range stops below 10.5.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.5(1)su5, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.6 ≤ v < 11.6.1
Affected range stops below 11.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
10.0 ≤ v < 10.5(2)su511.0 ≤ v < 11.0(1a)su411.5 ≤ v < 11.5(1)su310.5(2.10000.5)11.0(1.10000.10)11.5(1.10000.6)12.0
Affected range stops below 10.5(2)su5, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.0(1a)su4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.5(1)su3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
11.6 ≤ v < 11.6(1)9.0(2)su1.3
Affected range stops below 11.6(1), so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitAutomatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
COMPLETE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-399CWE-400

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card