CVE-2023-36386
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.16.0). A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the web interface of the affected application that could allow an attacker to execute malicious javascript code by tricking users into accessing a malicious link. The value is reflected in the response without sanitization while throwing an “invalid params element name” error on the get_elements parameters.
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 confidenceA reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the web interface of multiple RUGGEDCOM ROX devices (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, RX5000) running versions prior to V2.16.0. The vulnerability is triggered via the get_elements parameter, which reflects unsanitized user input in an 'invalid params element name' error response, allowing injection of malicious JavaScript code through crafted URLs.
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< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0< 2.16.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 device model and firmware versionAccess the device web interface or use SNMP/CLI to retrieve the firmware version. Common paths: System > About or Device Information page in the web UI, or run 'show version' via CLI.Affected if Firmware version is displayed as less than 2.16.0 (e.g., 2.15.x, 2.14.x, etc.)
-
Confirm web interface is enabledVerify the device web service is running by attempting to access the device IP via HTTP/HTTPS or checking via CLI with 'show web-server status' or equivalent command.Affected if Web interface is accessible and responds to requests
-
Check get_elements parameter handlingSubmit a request to any web page with the parameter get_elements containing a benign test string such as 'test<script>alert(1)</script>' and observe if this string appears unmodified in the error response.Affected if The submitted string appears verbatim (unescaped) in the error response, indicating lack of input sanitization
The environment is affected if the device runs firmware version prior to 2.16.0 and the web interface reflects unsanitized input from the get_elements parameter in error responses.
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 · scoped2.16.0
Upgrade all affected RUGGEDCOM ROX devices to firmware version V2.16.0 or later. As an interim measure, implement web application firewall rules to sanitize the get_elements parameter and educate users about avoiding malicious links.
RUGGEDCOM ROX firmware V2.16.0 or later for all affected models (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512)
- 1. Identify all affected Ruggedcom ROX devices (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512) in the network inventory
- 2. Backup the current device configuration before performing any firmware update
- 3. Download the V2.16.0 firmware or later from the Siemens industrial security portal (cert-portal.siemens.com) or official Siemens support channels
- 4. Access the device web interface or management console
- 5. Navigate to the firmware update or system maintenance section
- 6. Upload and apply the V2.16.0 firmware to each affected device
- 7. Verify the firmware upgrade was successful by checking the firmware version displayed in the device web interface
- 8. Confirm the device web interface is functioning normally and the XSS vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36386 — 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-2023-36386 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