CVE-2023-2876
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 · uneditedSensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag vulnerability in ABB REX640 PCL1 (firmware modules), ABB REX640 PCL2 (Firmware modules), ABB REX640 PCL3 (firmware modules) allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects REX640 PCL1: from 1.0;0 before 1.0.8; REX640 PCL2: from 1.0;0 before 1.1.4; REX640 PCL3: from 1.0;0 before 1.2.1.
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 ABB REX640 PCL1, PCL2, and PCL3 firmware modules have a Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag vulnerability. This means session cookies set by the web interface do not include the HttpOnly attribute, allowing malicious JavaScript (via XSS) to potentially access and steal session cookies. An attacker who exploits an XSS vulnerability could hijack user sessions.
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>= 1.0.0, < 1.0.8>= 1.0.0, < 1.1.4>= 1.0.0, < 1.2.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 the installed REX640 firmware version and PCL moduleAccess the device administration interface or check the system information page to determine the firmware version and whether it is PCL1, PCL2, or PCL3. Consult the device documentation for the specific command or menu path to view firmware version information.Affected if The firmware version cannot be determined or the device is not accessible for version checking.
-
Compare installed version against affected rangesMatch the identified firmware version to the following ranges: PCL1 < 1.0.8, PCL2 < 1.1.4, or PCL3 < 1.2.1. If the exact version is known, check whether it falls within any of these vulnerable ranges.Affected if The installed version is PCL1 >= 1.0.0 and < 1.0.8, PCL2 >= 1.0.0 and < 1.1.4, or PCL3 >= 1.0.0 and < 1.2.1.
-
Access the web interface and examine session cookiesLog into the REX640 web interface using a browser. Open the browser developer tools (F12), go to the Application or Storage tab, and inspect the session cookies. Alternatively, capture HTTP responses using a proxy or curl to view the Set-Cookie headers.Affected if Session cookies are present in the browser or Set-Cookie headers are returned without the HttpOnly attribute.
-
Verify Set-Cookie response headers for HttpOnly flagUse a web proxy or command-line tool (such as curl) to capture HTTP responses from the web interface login and subsequent authenticated pages. Examine each Set-Cookie header to determine if the HttpOnly directive is included.Affected if Set-Cookie headers for session identifiers do not contain the HttpOnly flag.
The environment is affected if the REX640 firmware is running PCL1 < 1.0.8, PCL2 < 1.1.4, or PCL3 < 1.2.1, and the web interface session cookies lack the HttpOnly attribute.
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 · scoped1.0.81.1.41.2.1
Upgrade REX640 firmware to PCL1 version 1.0.8 or later, PCL2 version 1.1.4 or later, or PCL3 version 1.2.1 or later, which include the HttpOnly flag on sensitive cookies.
REX640 PCL1: upgrade to firmware >= 1.0.8 | REX640 PCL2: upgrade to firmware >= 1.1.4 | REX640 PCL3: upgrade to firmware >= 1.2.1
- Identify the specific PCL module (PCL1, PCL2, or PCL3) running on the REX640 device
- Locate and download the appropriate firmware update from ABB's official support portal (search.abb.com)
- Review ABB firmware upgrade instructions specific to the REX640 platform
- Upload and apply the new firmware to the affected PCL module
- Verify that the HttpOnly flag is now properly set on sensitive cookies after the upgrade
- Confirm the XSS vulnerability is remediated through testing
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-2876 — 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-2023-2876 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