CVE-2023-2673
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 · uneditedImproper Input Validation vulnerability in PHOENIX CONTACT FL/TC MGUARD Family in multiple versions may allow UDP packets to bypass the filter rules and access the solely connected device behind the MGUARD which can be used for flooding attacks.
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 PHOENIX CONTACT FL/TC MGUARD Family devices have an improper input validation vulnerability where UDP packets can bypass configured filter rules. This allows attackers to reach devices behind the MGUARD gateway that should be protected by the firewall, potentially enabling flooding attacks against those internal devices.
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<= 10.1.1<= 10.1.1<= 10.1.1<= 10.1.1<= 8.9.0<= 8.9.0<= 8.9.0<= 8.9.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 MGUARD device modelAccess the device web interface or CLI and retrieve the model name from the system information or device status pageAffected if The device model is one of: FL Mguard 2102, FL Mguard 4102 PCI, FL Mguard 4102 PCIe, FL Mguard 4302, FL Mguard Centerport, FL Mguard Centerport VPN 1000, FL Mguard Core Tx, or FL Mguard Core Tx VPN
-
Check the installed firmware versionIn the device web interface, navigate to System > Firmware or use the CLI command 'show version' to retrieve the current firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is <= 10.1.1 for models 2102, 4102 PCI, 4102 PCIe, or 4302; OR <= 8.9.0 for models Centerport, Centerport VPN 1000, Core Tx, or Core Tx VPN
-
Verify UDP filter rules are configuredIn the web interface, navigate to Firewall > Rules or Firewall > Packet Filter and examine the configured UDP rules. From CLI, use 'show firewall rules' or equivalent command to list filter rulesAffected if UDP-specific filter rules exist and the device is operating as a gateway protecting internal devices behind it
The device is affected if it is a vulnerable MGUARD model running the specified firmware version AND has UDP firewall rules configured that could be bypassed.
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 dataApply the vendor-provided firmware update to address the input validation issue. Review and verify all existing UDP filter rules are functioning correctly after patching.
- 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-2023-2673 — 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-2023-2673 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