Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.45% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceCisco · Cisco Secure Email
Official source article: Cisco CISCO-SA-ESA-SMA-PRIVESC-9DVKFPJ8 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedVulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Secure Email Gateway could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands. These vulnerability is due to improper input validation in the CLI. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting operating system commands into a legitimate command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted command prompt and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. To successfully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
Vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Secure Email Gateway could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands. These vulnerability is due to improper input validation in the CLI. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting operating system commands into a legitimate command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted command prompt and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. To successfully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
Untrusted input reaches a command interpreter without sufficient validation or separation from command syntax.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
Vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Secure Email Gateway could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands. These vulnerability is due to improper input validation in the CLI. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting operating system commands into a legitimate command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted command prompt and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. To successfully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
Untrusted input reaches a command interpreter without sufficient validation or separation from command syntax.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 16 Feb 2023 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 08:57 UTC · CWE-77 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.