OpensearchApplication · Amazon
CVE-2023-23613
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 · uneditedOpenSearch is an open source distributed and RESTful search engine. In affected versions there is an issue in the implementation of field-level security (FLS) and field masking where rules written to explicitly exclude fields are not correctly applied for certain queries that rely on their auto-generated .keyword fields. This issue is only present for authenticated users with read access to the indexes containing the restricted fields. This may expose data which may otherwise not be accessible to the user. OpenSearch 1.0.0-1.3.7 and 2.0.0-2.4.1 are affected. Users are advised to upgrade to OpenSearch 1.3.8 or 2.5.0. Users unable to upgrade may write explicit exclusion rules as a workaround. Policies authored in this way are not subject to this issue.
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 confidenceOpenSearch has a field-level security (FLS) bypass where explicit field exclusion rules fail to apply correctly for queries using auto-generated .keyword fields. Authenticated users with read access to indexes containing restricted fields may see data that should be hidden.
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
OpensearchApplication
>= 1.0.0, < 1.3.8>= 2.0.0, < 2.5.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check OpenSearch versionRetrieve the installed OpenSearch version via the _nodes/version API or check the service/package version. Compare against affected ranges: 1.0.0 to <1.3.8, or 2.0.0 to <2.5.0.Affected if Version falls within the affected ranges (1.0.0 to <1.3.8 or 2.0.0 to <2.5.0)
-
Verify Field-Level Security is enabledCheck security plugin configuration for active FLS policies via the _plugins/_security/api/securityconfig endpoint or by reviewing role definitions that contain field_level_security sections.Affected if FLS policies are configured and enabled in security roles
-
Identify field exclusion rulesReview security role configurations to identify roles using exclude: true or explicit field exclusion syntax in FLS settings. Query _plugins/_security/api/roles to list all roles with field_level_security definitions.Affected if Roles contain explicit field exclusion rules in FLS configuration
-
Check for .keyword field usageExamine index mappings via GET /<index>/_mapping to determine if text fields have .keyword sub-fields, which are auto-generated for analyzed string fields.Affected if Indexes contain text fields with .keyword sub-fields that are subject to exclusion rules
-
Verify user access to restricted indexesReview role-to-index mappings to confirm authenticated users have read access to indexes with FLS-protected fields. Check _plugins/_security/api/roles for roles mapping to restricted indices.Affected if Authenticated users have read access to indexes containing fields protected by FLS exclusions
Environment is affected if running an OpenSearch version in the vulnerable range AND Field-Level Security with explicit field exclusions is configured for indexes containing .keyword fields that authenticated users can access.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.3.82.5.0
Upgrade to OpenSearch 1.3.8 or 2.5.0, or implement explicit exclusion rules in FLS policies as a workaround.
OpenSearch 1.3.8 (for 1.x branches) or OpenSearch 2.5.0 (for 2.x branches)
- 1. Identify the current OpenSearch version by checking the cluster health API or opensearch.yml configuration
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on your current version (e.g., 1.x to 1.3.8, or 2.x to 2.5.0)
- 3. Take a full backup of all OpenSearch data, including indices, cluster state, and configuration files
- 4. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to verify compatibility
- 5. Stop the OpenSearch cluster or individual nodes before upgrading
- 6. Upgrade to OpenSearch 1.3.8 (for 1.x users) or 2.5.0 (for 2.x users) using your deployment method (tarball, Docker, package manager)
- 7. Restart OpenSearch services and verify the cluster health is green
- 8. Verify field-level security is functioning correctly by testing that restricted .keyword fields are properly excluded/masked
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Opensearch
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-23613 — 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-2023-23613 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