CVE-2023-34471
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 · uneditedAMI SPx contains a vulnerability in the BMC where a user may cause a missing cryptographic step by generating a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC). A successful exploit of this vulnerability may lead to the loss confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.
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 confidenceAMI SPx Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) firmware contains a vulnerability where a missing cryptographic step in HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code) generation allows attackers to potentially bypass authentication or tamper with data, leading to loss of confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.
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= 12= 13CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify BMC firmware vendor and versionUse IPMI command 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <bmc_ip> -U admin -P password fru print' or access BMC web interface to view firmware information. Look for vendor identification as 'AMI' or 'American Megatrends' and note the firmware version string.Affected if Firmware is identified as AMI Megarac SP X version 12 or version 13
-
Confirm product line is SP XCheck BMC firmware revision or model information. In IPMI output, look for 'Megarac SP' or 'SPX' in the product name or firmware description fields.Affected if Product line is specifically Megarac SP X (not other AMI BMC variants)
-
Verify HMAC-based authentication is in useReview BMC configuration for enabled authentication mechanisms. Check if HMAC-SHA256 or similar HMAC-based authentication is enabled for IPMI, Redfish, or web API access.Affected if HMAC-based authentication is enabled and the firmware version is 12 or 13
Environment is affected if the BMC runs AMI Megarac SP X firmware version 12 or version 13 with HMAC authentication enabled.
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 AMI-provided firmware patches for SPx BMC. If patches are unavailable, implement strict network segmentation and access controls to limit BMC exposure to untrusted networks.
- Consultation6.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-34471 — 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-2023-34471 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