Incorrect data input validation vulnerability, which could allow an attacker with access to…
CVE-2023-3768 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in INGEPAC DA3451 from Ingeteam, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected INGEPAC DA3451 versions: 0.29.2.42. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.66% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 52% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of INGEPAC DA3451 you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ingeteam | INGEPAC DA3451 | 0.29.2.42 | Not stated |
| Ingeteam | Ingepac Da3451 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Ingeteam | Ingepac Ef Md Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Ingeteam | Ingepac Fc5066 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- Integrity
- NoneNothing can be modified.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.6 | High | CNA (incibe.es) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.5 | High | NVD |
Official description
Incorrect data input validation vulnerability, which could allow an attacker with access to the network to implement fuzzing techniques that would allow him to gain knowledge about specially crafted packets that would create a DoS condition through the MMS protocol when initiating communication, achieving a complete system reboot of the device and its services.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Third-party and government advisories
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.