VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jun 2026Updated 7 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-20230: Cisco Unified Communications Manager · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Cisco Unified Communications ManagerSource CVE Database V5

Exploited in the wild · KEV due 28 Jun 2026 · 88% EPSS : apply the vendor's fix or mitigations to Cisco Unified Communications Manager now.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

KEV deadline: 28 Jun 2026 US federal agencies must patch by this date; a sensible deadline for everyone else. Other KEV due dates
EPSS: 88.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 99% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
Exploited in the wildExploited: evidence found.
Listed in CISA KEV 22 days after disclosure
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

CVE ID reserved
by Cisco Systems, Inc.
8 Oct 202511:59 UTC, 238 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
3 Jun 202616:09 UTC, t = 0
In Threat Radar
record ingested
3 Jun 202617:33 UTC, 1 hour after disclosure
Added to CISA KEV (opens in a new tab)
exploitation confirmed
25 Jun 2026, 22 days after disclosure
KEV remediation due
US federal deadline
28 Jun 2026, 25 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), GitHub proofs of concept, CISA KEV (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
CiscoCisco Unified Communications Manager	Affected 14 – 15SU4a 22 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check the firmware or software version for Cisco Unified Communications Manager in the device's admin interface against the vendor advisory.

Description

A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Unified CM) and Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition (Unified CM SME) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks through an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to write files to the underlying operating system that could be used later to elevate to root. Note: Cisco has assigned this security advisory a Security Impact Rating (SIR) of Critical rather than High as the score indicates. The reason is that exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker elevating privileges to root. Note: To exploit this vulnerability, the WebDialer service must be enabled. WebDialer is disabled by default.

Impact

An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to write files on the underlying operating system of affected Cisco Unified Communications Manager devices. This capability can be used to escalate privileges to root, posing a critical security risk. The vulnerability does not impact confidentiality but has high integrity impact and no availability impact as per the CVSS vector. Exploitation requires the WebDialer service to be enabled, which is off by default, reducing the attack surface.

Mitigation

Since exploitation requires the WebDialer service, which is disabled by default, ensure that WebDialer remains disabled if not needed. Monitor Cisco's official advisories for updates on patches or official fixes.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2026, 12:26 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats