CVE-2023-28338
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 · uneditedAny request send to a Netgear Nighthawk Wifi6 Router (RAX30)'s web service containing a “Content-Type” of “multipartboundary=” will result in the request body being written to “/tmp/mulipartFile” on the device itself. A sufficiently large file will cause device resources to be exhausted, resulting in the device becoming unusable until it is rebooted.
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 confidenceDenial of service vulnerability in Netgear Nighthawk RAX30 routers where HTTP requests with a specially crafted 'Content-Type: multipartboundary=' header cause the request body to be written to a fixed path /tmp/mulipartFile. Large or repeated requests exhaust device storage/memory, rendering the device unusable until reboot.
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 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 your router modelCheck the device label or web interface for the exact model number (look for RAX30 or Nighthawk RAX30)Affected if The device is a Netgear RAX30 or RAX30 variant
-
Check for the indicator fileIf you have SSH/telnet access to the router, run: ls -la /tmp/mulipartFile (note the misspelling as shown)Affected if The file /tmp/mulipartFile exists, indicating the vulnerability may have been triggered
-
Check device storage and memoryIf accessible via SSH, run: df -h and free -m to check /tmp partition and memory usageAffected if /tmp partition is full or nearly full, or memory is severely exhausted without other explanation
-
Review HTTP access logsIf logs are accessible, search for requests containing 'Content-Type: multipartboundary=' header patternAffected if Such requests appear in the logs, indicating active exploitation attempts or success
-
Check network exposure of admin interfaceDetermine if the router web administration interface (port 80/443) is exposed to untrusted networks (internet-facing)Affected if The admin interface is directly accessible from the internet without VPN or filtering
You are affected if you own a Netgear RAX30 router with the admin interface exposed to network where attackers can send HTTP requests with the 'multipartboundary=' Content-Type header, or if /tmp/mulipartFile exists on the device.
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 vendor firmware updates when released; in the interim, implement network-level filtering to block requests with the 'multipartboundary=' Content-Type or consider restricting administrative interface exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,336.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-28338 — 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-2023-28338 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