CVE-2023-31198
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 · uneditedOS command injection vulnerability exists in Wi-Fi AP UNIT allows. If this vulnerability is exploited, a remote authenticated attacker with an administrative privilege to execute an arbitrary OS command. Affected products and versions are as follows: AC-PD-WAPU v1.05_B04 and earlier, AC-PD-WAPUM v1.05_B04 and earlier, AC-PD-WAPU-P v1.05_B04P and earlier, AC-PD-WAPUM-P v1.05_B04P and earlier, AC-WAPU-300 v1.00_B07 and earlier, AC-WAPUM-300 v1.00_B07 and earlier, AC-WAPU-300-P v1.00_B07 and earlier, and AC-WAPUM-300-P v1.00_B07 and earlier
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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Wi-Fi access point units (AC-PD-WAPU, AC-PD-WAPUM, AC-PD-WAPU-P, AC-PD-WAPUM-P, AC-WAPU-300, AC-WAPUM-300, AC-PD-WAPU-300-P, AC-WAPUM-300-P series) allows remote authenticated attackers with administrative privileges to execute arbitrary OS commands via the web interface or management interface.
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<= 1.05_b04<= 1.05_b04<= 1.05_b04p<= 1.05_b04p<= 1.00_b07<= 1.00_b07<= 1.00_b07<= 1.00_b07CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 device model and firmware versionAccess the device web interface or management console and locate the firmware version information, typically found under System Status, Device Info, or About pages. Compare against the affected version ranges: AC-PD-WAPU/WAPUM/WAPU-P/WAPUM-P models <= 1.05_b04 or <= 1.05_b04p; AC-WAPU-300/WAPUM-300/WAPU-300-P/WAPUM-300-P models <= 1.00_b07.Affected if The installed firmware version falls within or below the affected version ranges listed.
-
Verify web interface is enabledCheck the device configuration for web-based management settings, typically under Management, Administration, or Access Control settings in the web interface or CLI.Affected if The web management interface is enabled, as this is the attack vector for command injection.
-
Confirm administrative access method exposureInspect network configuration to determine if the management interface (web or CLI) is accessible from WAN or untrusted networks. Look for settings such as 'Remote Management', 'Allow Remote Access', or WAN-side HTTP/HTTPS access.Affected if The administrative web interface is reachable from WAN-facing interfaces or untrusted networks, enabling remote exploitation.
-
Check for existing administrative accountsReview the list of configured administrative users in the device, typically under User Management, Administrator Accounts, or Access Control menus.Affected if Administrative user accounts exist, as valid admin credentials are required for exploitation of this vulnerability.
The device is affected if it is an Inaba AC-PD-WAPU, AC-PD-WAPUM, AC-PD-WAPU-P, AC-PD-WAPUM-P, AC-WAPU-300, AC-WAPUM-300, AC-PD-WAPU-300-P, or AC-WAPUM-300-P series unit running firmware at or below the affected version thresholds AND the web management interface is accessible remotely.
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 dataUpdate to a patched firmware version beyond v1.05_B04 (or v1.00_B07 for 300-series) as provided by the vendor; if no patch is available, restrict administrative interface access to trusted networks only and disable remote management on WAN-facing interfaces.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-31198 — 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-2023-31198 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