CVE-2023-3331
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 · uneditedImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory vulnerability in NEC Corporation Aterm Aterm WG2600HP2, WG2600HP, WG2200HP, WG1800HP2, WG1800HP, WG1400HP, WG600HP, WG300HP, WF300HP, WR9500N, WR9300N, WR8750N, WR8700N, WR8600N, WR8370N, WR8175N and WR8170N all versions allows a attacker to delete specific files in the product.
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 a path traversal (directory traversal) vulnerability in NEC Aterm router firmware. The improper limitation of pathname allows an authenticated or unauthenticated attacker to manipulate file path references to traverse outside the restricted directory and delete specific system files, potentially causing denial of service or compromising device integrity.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
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 modelAccess the router administration interface or check the device label to confirm the exact model number (e.g., Wf300hp, Wg1400hp, Wg1800hp, Wg1800hp2, Wg2200hp, Wg2600hp, Wg2600hp2, Wg300hp)Affected if The device model matches any of the listed affected models
-
Confirm firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to the firmware/version information page, or use the command 'show version' via telnet/SSH if availableAffected if Any firmware version is installed on an affected model (all versions are vulnerable)
-
Check management interface exposureDetermine if the router web management interface (HTTP/HTTPS on ports 80/443 or custom ports) is accessible from the internet by reviewing firewall rules or performing an external port scanAffected if The router management interface is exposed to untrusted networks (the vulnerability can be exploited unauthenticated)
-
Review system logs for path traversal indicatorsAccess router logs and search for unusual file deletion attempts, patterns like '../' or '..\' in request parameters, or unexpected system file accessAffected if Logs contain requests with directory traversal patterns or indicate deletion of system files
If the device is any model in the Wf300hp, Wg1400hp, Wg1800hp, Wg1800hp2, Wg2200hp, Wg2600hp, Wg2600hp2, or Wg300hp series, it is affected regardless of firmware version, especially if the management interface is internet-accessible.
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-provided firmware updates when available. If no patch exists, consider network segmentation to limit exposure and monitor for unauthorized file deletion attempts.
- 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-2023-3331 — 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-2023-3331 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