CVE-2023-32289
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 · uneditedThe affected application lacks proper validation of user-supplied data when parsing project files (e.g.., CSP). This could lead to an out-of-bounds read in IO_CFG. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.
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 confidenceThis is an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the IO_CFG component that occurs when parsing project files (specifically CSP files). The application fails to validate user-supplied data before reading memory, allowing an attacker to trigger the out-of-bounds read and achieve arbitrary code execution in the current process context.
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= 9.90= 4.70CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 installed Cscape versionOpen Cscape and navigate to Help > About, or check the application properties in Windows Task Manager or the installed program files to find the exact version numberAffected if The version is 9.90 for Cscape or 4.70 for Cscape Envisionrv exactly matching the affected versions listed
-
Confirm the system processes CSP project filesSearch for .csp file extensions in the project directories or recent file access logs on the systemAffected if CSP project files are present or have been recently opened/imported into the application
-
Check if IO_CFG component is utilizedExamine the CSP project file structure using a hex editor or parse utility to identify if IO_CFG configuration sections are present in the project filesAffected if The project contains IO_CFG sections that the parser processes when loading CSP files
-
Review recent project file loading activityCheck application logs, Windows event logs, or file system audit logs for recent CSP file open or import operationsAffected if CSP files have been opened or imported on the system, triggering the vulnerable parsing code path
A system is affected if it runs Cscape version 9.90 or Cscape Envisionrv version 4.70 and processes CSP project files containing IO_CFG configurations.
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 proper input validation and bounds checking in the CSP project file parser (IO_CFG). Validate file structure and field sizes before any memory read operations. Consider implementing a secure parsing layer with explicit bounds verification.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32289 — 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-2023-32289 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