CVE-2023-31410
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 remote unprivileged attacker can intercept the communication via e.g. Man-In-The-Middle, due to the absence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the SICK EventCam App. This lack of encryption in the communication channel can lead to the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information. The attacker can exploit this weakness to eavesdrop on the communication between the EventCam App and the Client, and potentially manipulate the data being transmitted.
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 SICK EventCam App transmits data without Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption, allowing a remote unprivileged attacker on the same network to perform a Man-In-The-Middle attack. This enables eavesdropping on sensitive data and potential manipulation of communications between the mobile app and backend.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Confirm SICK EventCam App is installedCheck device or system for the SICK EventCam mobile application (typically found in installed apps list on Android/iOS devices)Affected if The app is present on any device
-
Verify network traffic encryptionUse a network capture tool (such as Wireshark or a mobile proxy) to intercept traffic between the EventCam App and its backend while the app is in use. Inspect the protocol used - check if traffic uses plain HTTP instead of HTTPS/TLSAffected if Network traffic from the app uses unencrypted HTTP on ports 80 or other non-TLS protocols
-
Check for TLS/SSL certificate validationAttempt a MITM proxy test (with a trusted CA certificate installed on the device). Observe whether the app accepts the proxy certificate and completes connections, indicating lack of proper certificate validationAffected if The app accepts connections through an untrusted proxy without certificate validation errors, confirming TLS is not enforced or properly validated
If the SICK EventCam App is installed and its network communications are transmitted in plaintext (unencrypted HTTP) without proper TLS certificate validation, the environment is affected by this 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.
From vendor dataImplement TLS encryption for all network communications between the EventCam App and its backend services, and enforce proper certificate validation on the client to prevent MITM attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-31410 — 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-2023-31410 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