CVE-2018-4031
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 · uneditedAn exploitable vulnerability exists in the safe browsing function of the CUJO Smart Firewall, version 7003. The flaw lies in the way the safe browsing function parses HTTP requests. The server hostname is extracted from captured HTTP/HTTPS requests and inserted as part of a Lua statement without prior sanitization, which results in arbitrary Lua script execution in the kernel. An attacker could send an HTTP request to exploit this vulnerability.
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 confidenceThe CUJO Smart Firewall version 7003 safe browsing function extracts server hostnames from captured HTTP/HTTPS requests and directly inserts them into Lua statements without sanitization, allowing arbitrary Lua script execution in the kernel.
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= 7003CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the device modelConfirm the device is a CUJO Smart Firewall by checking the device label or administrative interface for the model nameAffected if Device is not a CUJO Smart Firewall, then not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the device administrative interface or check via CLI/API to determine the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version is NOT 7003, then not vulnerable (this CVE affects only version 7003 exactly)
-
Locate the safe browsing settingNavigate to the device settings or configuration panel to find the safe browsing or content filtering functionAffected if Cannot locate safe browsing function, then likely not vulnerable to this specific attack vector
-
Verify if safe browsing is enabledCheck the safe browsing configuration status in the device settings or via CLI command if availableAffected if Safe browsing is disabled, then the attack surface for this specific vulnerability is not present
Device is affected only if it is a CUJO Smart Firewall running firmware version 7003 with the safe browsing function enabled.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied firmware patch when available; until then, consider disabling the safe browsing function or isolating the device from untrusted networks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-4031 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-4031 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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