Pingtel xpressa 1.2.5/1.2.7.4 Authentication SIP_AUTHENTICATE_SCHEME denial of service
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 5.3 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability was found in Pingtel xpressa 1.2.5/1.2.7.4. It has been rated as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Authentication. This manipulation of the argument SIP_AUTHENTICATE_SCHEME causes denial of service. This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2002-0669. No exploit is available.
Details
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Pingtel xpressa 1.2.5/1.2.7.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown function of the component Authentication. The manipulation of the argument SIP_AUTHENTICATE_SCHEME with an unknown input leads to a denial of service vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-404. The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use. As an impact it is known to affect availability. The summary by CVE is:
The web interface for Pingtel xpressa SIP-based voice-over-IP phone 1.2.5 through 1.2.7.4 allows administrators to cause a denial of service by modifying the SIP_AUTHENTICATE_SCHEME value to force authentication of incoming calls, which does not notify the user when an authentication failure occurs.
The weakness was published 02/19/2003 (Website). The advisory is shared at atstake.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2002-0669. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation doesn't need any form of authentication. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available.
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
The vulnerability is also documented in the vulnerability database at X-Force (9564). Similar entries are available at VDB-18414, VDB-18415, VDB-18420 and VDB-18421. If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Vendor
Name
Version
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔍VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 5.3VulDB Meta Temp Score: 5.3
VulDB Base Score: 5.3
VulDB Temp Score: 5.3
VulDB Vector: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔍
VulDB Temp Score: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
NVD Base Score: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Denial of serviceCWE: CWE-404
CAPEC: 🔍
ATT&CK: 🔍
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔍
Status: Not defined
EPSS Score: 🔍
EPSS Percentile: 🔍
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔍
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔍
Timeline
02/19/2003 🔍02/19/2003 🔍
08/07/2014 🔍
06/23/2024 🔍
Sources
Advisory: atstake.comStatus: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2002-0669 (🔍)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2002-0669
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-20125
X-Force: 9564
See also: 🔍
Entry
Created: 08/07/2014 17:52Updated: 06/23/2024 12:25
Changes: 08/07/2014 17:52 (41), 06/13/2018 09:16 (6), 06/23/2024 12:25 (17)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.