CVE-2023-0897
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 · uneditedSielco PolyEco1000 is vulnerable to a session hijack vulnerability due to the cookie being vulnerable to a brute force attack, lack of SSL, and the session being visible in requests.
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 · moderate confidenceSielco PolyEco1000 contains a session hijack vulnerability where session cookies lack sufficient entropy making them susceptible to brute force attacks, combined with the absence of SSL/TLS encryption allowing session identifiers to be intercepted in plain text from network traffic.
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= 1.7.0= 10.16= 2.0.0= 2.0.2= 10.19= 1.9.3= 1.9.4= 2.0.6= 10.19CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 installed product and firmware versionAccess the device admin interface or check system information to determine if the device is a Sielco Polyeco300, Polyeco500, or Polyeco1000. Look for the firmware version number in the system settings or status page.Affected if The device is a Sielco Polyeco model with firmware version 1.7.0, 10.16, 2.0.0, 2.0.2, 10.19, 1.9.3, 1.9.4, or 2.0.6.
-
Confirm HTTP vs HTTPS connectivityAttempt to access the device web interface using http:// and https:// prefixes. Check whether the device redirects HTTP to HTTPS or serves content over unencrypted HTTP.Affected if The device responds over plain HTTP (port 80) without redirecting to HTTPS, or serves login/session content over an unencrypted connection.
-
Verify SSL/TLS certificate is not configuredCheck the device network settings or security configuration page for SSL/TLS certificate settings. Attempt an SSL/TLS handshake on port 443 and observe whether a valid certificate is presented.Affected if No SSL/TLS certificate is configured, or the device does not support HTTPS-based connections for administrative access.
-
Inspect session cookie characteristicsLog into the device web interface using an unencrypted connection. Use browser developer tools or a packet capture tool to view the session cookie (often named PHPSESSID, JSESSIONID, or similar).Affected if The session cookie value appears short, predictable, or lacks sufficient random characters suggesting low entropy (e.g., simple numeric or short alphanumeric strings).
Your environment is affected if you are running a Sielco Polyeco300, Polyeco500, or Polyeco1000 with one of the listed firmware versions AND the web interface is accessible over unencrypted HTTP or uses low-entropy session cookies.
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 dataImplement SSL/TLS encryption for all communications and redesign session management with cryptographically strong, randomly generated session identifiers to prevent brute forcing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-0897 — 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-2023-0897 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