CVE-2023-2062
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 · uneditedMissing Password Field Masking vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric Corporation EtherNet/IP configuration tools SW1DNN-EIPCT-BD and SW1DNN-EIPCTFX5-BD allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to know the password for MELSEC iQ-R Series EtherNet/IP module RJ71EIP91 and MELSEC iQ-F Series EtherNet/IP module FX5-ENET/IP. This vulnerability results in authentication bypass vulnerability, which allows the attacker to access MELSEC iQ-R Series EtherNet/IP module RJ71EIP91 and MELSEC iQ-F Series EtherNet/IP module FX5-ENET/IP via FTP.
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 Mitsubishi Electric EtherNet/IP configuration tools (SW1DNN-EIPCT-BD and SW1DNN-EIPCTFX5-BD) fail to mask password fields during input, exposing credentials in plaintext. This allows remote unauthenticated attackers to view the password and subsequently authenticate to the RJ71EIP91 and FX5-ENET/IP modules via FTP, bypassing authentication controls.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 if affected configuration tools are installedSearch system for Mitsubishi configuration tools SW1DNN-EIPCT-BD or SW1DNN-EIPCTFX5-BDAffected if Either tool is installed on the system
-
Determine if RJ71EIP91 or FX5-ENET/IP modules are in useCheck network for presence of Mitsubishi RJ71EIP91 or FX5-ENET/IP EtherNet/IP modulesAffected if Either module type is deployed on the network
-
Verify if FTP is enabled on the modulesCheck module configuration or network scan to see if FTP service is enabled on the EtherNet/IP modulesAffected if FTP is enabled and accessible on the modules
-
Check for plaintext password exposure in tool logs or temp filesSearch configuration tool user data directories, logs, and temporary files for any stored passwordsAffected if Plaintext passwords are found in logs or temporary files
If the configuration tools were used and FTP is accessible on the modules, credentials may have been exposed in plaintext and could be harvested by an attacker.
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 dataUpdate to patched versions of the configuration tools when released by Mitsubishi Electric. As a defensive measure, immediately change passwords for any exposed MELSEC EtherNet/IP modules and restrict FTP access to trusted networks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-2062 — 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-2023-2062 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