CVE-2023-24958
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in the IBM TS7700 Management Interface 8.51.2.12, 8.52.200.111, 8.52.102.13, and 8.53.0.63 could allow an authenticated user to submit a specially crafted URL leading to privilege escalation and remote code execution. IBM X-Force ID: 246320.
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 confidenceAn authenticated user can submit a specially crafted URL in the IBM TS7700 Management Interface that allows privilege escalation to higher permissions and ultimately achieves remote code execution on the underlying system. This indicates a broken access control vulnerability combined with command injection or unsafe code execution in the URL handling logic.
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>= 8.51.0, < 8.51.2.12>= 8.52.100.0, < 8.52.102.13>= 8.51.0, < 8.51.2.12>= 8.52.100.0, < 8.52.102.13>= 8.52.200.0, < 8.52.200.111>= 8.53.0, < 8.53.0.63>= 8.53.0, <= 8.53.0.63CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the IBM TS7700 model typeAccess the TS7700 Management Interface or use the system's hardware inventory to determine if the unit is a 3957 Vec, 3957 Ved, or 3948 Ved model.Affected if The model is not one of these three affected models.
-
Determine the firmware versionUse the TS7700 Management Interface dashboard or run the appropriate firmware version command (such as 'lsrevision' or via the GUI under System > Hardware Information) to obtain the installed firmware version.Affected if The firmware version cannot be determined or retrieved.
-
Compare firmware version against affected ranges for 3957 VecIf the model is 3957 Vec, check if the version is >= 8.51.0 and < 8.51.2.12, OR >= 8.52.100.0 and < 8.52.102.13.Affected if The version falls within either of these ranges.
-
Compare firmware version against affected ranges for 3957 VedIf the model is 3957 Ved, check if the version is >= 8.51.0 and < 8.51.2.12, OR >= 8.52.100.0 and < 8.52.102.13, OR >= 8.52.200.0 and < 8.52.200.111, OR >= 8.53.0 and < 8.53.0.63.Affected if The version falls within any of these ranges.
-
Compare firmware version against affected ranges for 3948 VedIf the model is 3948 Ved, check if the version is >= 8.53.0 and <= 8.53.0.63.Affected if The version falls within this range.
The environment is affected if the TS7700 model is a 3957 Vec, 3957 Ved, or 3948 Ved and its firmware version matches any of the specific affected ranges listed in the 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.
dbcve · scoped8.51.2.128.52.102.138.52.200.111
Apply IBM's vendor patch for this vulnerability to the affected TS7700 Management Interface versions to remediate the authorization bypass and input validation flaws.
IBM TS7700 firmware 8.51.2.12, 8.52.102.13, 8.52.200.111, or 8.53.0.63 (or later) depending on the product model and current branch
- Identify the current firmware version of the IBM TS7700 (Vec or Ved) by accessing the Management Interface
- Determine which firmware branch is currently running (8.51.x, 8.52.x, or 8.53.x)
- For 3957 Vec: upgrade to version 8.51.2.12 or 8.52.102.13 or later depending on the current branch
- For 3957 Ved: upgrade to version 8.51.2.12, 8.52.102.13, 8.52.200.111, or 8.53.0.63 or later depending on the current branch
- For 3948 Ved: upgrade to version 8.53.0.63 or later
- Obtain the appropriate firmware update from IBM support or the IBM Fix Central portal
- Follow IBM's standard firmware update procedure for TS7700 series, which typically involves uploading the firmware via the Management Interface
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the firmware version in the Management Interface post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-24958 — 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-2023-24958 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