CVE-2023-34472
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 an Attacker may cause an improper neutralization of CRLF sequences in HTTP Headers. A successful exploit of this vulnerability may lead to a loss of integrity.
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 BMC contains a CRLF injection vulnerability where improper neutralization of carriage return and line feed sequences in HTTP headers allows attackers to inject malicious headers or split HTTP responses. This can lead to HTTP response splitting attacks, cache poisoning, and cross-site scripting (XSS), resulting in loss of 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 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 the BMC productAccess the BMC web interface or check system information to confirm the product is Ami Megarac SP-X. Look for 'MegaRAC SP-X' or 'AMI SPx' in the BMC firmware version or system inventory.Affected if The product is not Ami Megarac SP-X, the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Check the installed BMC firmware versionAccess the BMC web interface and navigate to Settings > Firmware Update or System Information page to view the firmware version. Alternatively, use IPMI command: 'ipmitool mc info' or check the BMC version via the web UI footer or about page.Affected if The firmware version is 12 or 13 - these are the affected versions listed in the CVE.
-
Verify HTTP management interface is enabledIn the BMC web interface, go to Settings > Network > Network Services or similar. Check if HTTP (port 80) is enabled alongside or instead of HTTPS (port 443). The vulnerability allows injection into HTTP headers, so HTTP must be accessible.Affected if HTTP (port 80) is enabled and accessible - the CRLF injection can be exploited over HTTP.
-
Confirm network accessibility of BMC web interfaceCheck if the BMC management interface IP is reachable from network segments outside the trusted management network. Use 'nmap -p 80,443 <BMC-IP>' or check firewall rules and network segmentation configuration.Affected if The BMC HTTP/HTTPS interface is exposed to untrusted networks, increasing exploitation risk.
You are affected if you have an Ami Megarac SP-X BMC with firmware version 12 or 13 that has its HTTP management interface enabled and 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-supplied BMC firmware updates when available. Until then, restrict network access to the BMC management interface, enforce HTTPS, and monitor for suspicious HTTP activity.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-34472 — 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-2023-34472 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