Fs 3830nHardware / appliance · Kyocera

CVE-2006-0788

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2006-02-19
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
Kyocera 3830 (aka FS-3830N) printers have a back door that allows remote attackers to read and alter configuration settings via strings that begin with "!R!SIOP0", as demonstrated using (1) a connection to to TCP port 9100 or (2) the UNIX lp command.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

The Kyocera 3830 (FS-3830N) printer contains a hardcoded back door that allows remote attackers to read and modify configuration settings by sending specially crafted strings beginning with '!R!SIOP0' to TCP port 9100 (the raw printer port) or via the UNIX lp command. This bypasses authentication and provides full control over device settings.

MitigationIsolate affected printers on a restricted network segment with firewall rules blocking unauthorized access to TCP port 9100 from untrusted networks; verify if firmware updates are available from Kyocera, though this older model may be end-of-life and require replacement.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Fs 3830nHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Partial
Availability
None

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the printer model
    Check the device label or access the printer's web interface/status page to confirm the exact model is Kyocera FS-3830N or FS-3830n
    Affected if The device is a Kyocera FS-3830N printer (all versions contain the backdoor)
  2. Verify TCP port 9100 accessibility
    Run a network scan (e.g., nmap -p 910 <target IP> or nc -zv <target IP> 9100) to check if the raw printer port is reachable from untrusted network segments
    Affected if Port 9100 is open and accessible from networks outside the trusted printer administration zone
  3. Test for backdoor response
    Send the string '!R!SIOP0' followed by any characters to port 9100 (e.g., echo '!R!SIOP0TEST' | nc <printer IP> 9100) and observe if the printer responds or accepts commands without authentication
    Affected if The printer accepts and processes commands starting with '!R!SIOP0' without requiring any login credentials
  4. Review printer configuration access logs
    Examine printer logs or network traffic captures for any attempted or successful connections using the raw port 9100 with the backdoor pattern
    Affected if Logs show unauthenticated configuration changes or the specific '!R!SIOP0' pattern in network traffic

If the device is a Kyocera FS-3830N and TCP port 9100 is exposed to untrusted networks, the environment is vulnerable to the backdoor attack.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Isolate affected printers on a restricted network segment with firewall rules blocking unauthorized access to TCP port 9100 from untrusted networks; verify if firmware updates are available from Kyocera, though this older model may be end-of-life and require replacement.

Fix this in Fs 3830n Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-0788 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2006-0788 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data