Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-20209

RCE in Cisco Telepresence Video Communication Server ≤ 14.3.1

Published
16 August 2023
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.38 98th percentile
Risk Priority 66 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2023-20209 is a medium-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Cisco Telepresence Video Communication Server. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary

Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) could allow an authenticated remote attacker to perform command injection. The issue stems from insufficient validation of user-supplied input and is tracked under CWE-94 and CWE-77. Successful exploitation yields a remote root shell on the affected device. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.5.

An attacker with read-write privileges on the application can exploit the flaw by sending a crafted request to the management interface. This grants the ability to execute arbitrary commands and obtain root-level remote code execution on the appliance. The attack requires network access but no user interaction.

The Cisco Security Advisory at https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-expressway-injection-X475EbTQ provides official mitigation guidance and patch information. The EPSS score reached a peak of 0.3804 with a current value of 0.3427.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with read-write privileges on the application to perform a command injection attack that could result in…

more

remote code execution on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted request to the web-based management interface of an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to establish a remote shell with root privileges.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-20045Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2024-20485Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2024-20359Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20063Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20118Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20097Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2016-6367Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20124Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20045Same vendor: Cisco
CVE-2023-20026Same vendor: Cisco

Affected Assets

cisco
telepresence video communication server
≤ 14.3.1 · ≤ 14.3.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V1.2.9

Likely Mitigating Controls AI

Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.

addresses: CWE-94

Makes persistent code injection into loaded programs impossible when the executable image itself resides on hardware-protected read-only media.

addresses: CWE-94

Dynamically generated code can be produced and executed inside the isolated chamber, preventing host compromise from code-injection payloads.

addresses: CWE-94

Validates inputs used in dynamic code generation to block injected directives.

addresses: CWE-94

Directly prevents execution of attacker-supplied code written into data memory regions.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.

finds

Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.

prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.

prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.

none

Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.

References