CVE-2023-35833
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in YSoft SAFEQ 6 Server before 6.0.82. When modifying the URL of the LDAP server configuration from LDAPS to LDAP, the system does not require the password to be (re)entered. This results in exposing cleartext credentials when connecting to a rogue LDAP server. NOTE: the vendor originally reported this as a security issue but then reconsidered because of the requirement for Admin access in order to change the configuration.
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 confidenceIn YSoft SAFEQ 6 Server before version 6.0.82, when an administrator changes the LDAP server configuration URL from LDAPS (secure) to LDAP (insecure), the system does not require the password to be re-entered. This allows an authenticated admin with configuration access to inadvertently expose LDAP credentials in cleartext to a rogue LDAP server by simply changing the protocol scheme.
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>= 6.0, < 6.0.82CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 installed SAFEQ versionLocate the version information for your YSoft SAFEQ 6 Server installation through the product's admin interface, about page, or system information panelAffected if The installed version is 6.0.x or falls within 6.0 to 6.0.81 (any version >= 6.0 but < 6.0.82)
-
Review LDAP server configurationAccess the LDAP/LDAPS server settings in the SAFEQ administrative console and inspect the protocol settingAffected if The LDAP server URL is configured with the 'ldap://' scheme instead of 'ldaps://' (secure LDAP)
-
Verify credential storage configurationCheck whether the LDAP binding credentials are persisted in the configuration without requiring re-authentication when protocol is changedAffected if Changing from LDAPS to LDAP does not trigger a password re-entry prompt and retains previously configured credentials
You are affected if your SAFEQ version is 6.0 through 6.0.81 and your LDAP configuration uses the insecure ldap:// protocol instead of ldaps://, as this allows credentials to be transmitted in cleartext.
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.
dbcve · scoped6.0.82
Implement a requirement for password re-authentication when modifying the LDAP configuration to switch from LDAPS to LDAP, ensuring credentials are not transmitted in cleartext to potentially malicious servers.
6.0.82
- Upgrade YSoft SAFEQ Server to version 6.0.82 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-35833 — 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-2023-35833 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