CVE-2023-1749
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 · uneditedThe listed versions of Nexx Smart Home devices lack proper access control when executing actions. An attacker with a valid NexxHome deviceId could send API requests that the affected devices would execute.
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 confidenceNexx Smart Home devices lack proper access control on API endpoints. An attacker who possesses a valid deviceId can send API requests that the affected devices will execute without additional authorization verification, allowing unauthorized action execution.
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<= nxal100v-p1-9-1<= nxg100bv-p3-4-1<= nxpg100cv4-0-0<= nxg200v-p3-4-1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the Getnexx device modelLocate the device label or check the device documentation/mobile app to determine the exact model (Nxal 100, Nxg 100b, Nxpg 100w, or Nxg 200)Affected if The device model is one of the four affected models listed in the CVE
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the device settings through the Nexx mobile app or web interface, or check the device label for the firmware version string (e.g., nxal100v-p1-9-1, nxg100bv-p3-4-1)Affected if The firmware version is at or below the affected version for that model (Nxal 100 <= nxal100v-p1-9-1, Nxg 100b <= nxg100bv-p3-4-1, Nxpg 100w <= nxpg100cv4-0-0, Nxg 200 <= nxg200v-p3-4-1)
-
Verify API endpoint exposureAttempt to reach the device API from an external network location using the device's IP or hostname on common ports (typically 80/443), or check router port forwarding settingsAffected if The device API is reachable from outside the local network without network segmentation
-
Confirm lack of authorization on API callsUsing a valid deviceId obtained from the device or app, send an API request to the device (such as a status or control endpoint) and verify if the request executes without requiring additional token or authorization header beyond the deviceIdAffected if API requests execute with only a deviceId and no additional authorization verification is required
If the device is a Getnexx model with firmware at or below the specified version and its API is network-accessible without requiring additional authorization beyond a deviceId, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 proper authentication and authorization checks for all API requests, such as token-based or cryptographic verification, requiring firmware updates to add session validation and enforce correct permission checks.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-1749 — 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-2023-1749 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