CVE-2023-36748
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). The affected devices are configured to offer weak ciphers by default. This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to read and modify any data passed over to and from the affected device.
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 confidenceRUGGEDCOM ROX devices (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, RX5000) ship with weak cryptographic ciphers enabled by default. An attacker positioned man-in-the-middle can intercept and modify traffic by exploiting these weak ciphers.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/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 the RUGGEDCOM ROX device modelLocate the device label or access the device management interface to confirm the exact model number (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, or RX5000)Affected if The device is one of the listed models in the CVE (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, RX5000)
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the device CLI or web interface and retrieve the current firmware version. Compare it against the affected version range of < 2.16.0Affected if The firmware version is below 2.16.0
-
Verify SSL/TLS protocol configurationAccess the device management interface or configuration files and inspect the SSL/TLS settings. Look for the presence of deprecated protocols such as SSLv2, SSLv3, or TLS 1.0/1.1Affected if Deprecated or weak SSL/TLS protocols (SSLv2, SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1) are enabled
-
Inspect enabled cipher suitesReview the device SSL/TLS cipher configuration and check for weak or export-grade cipher suites (such as NULL, anon, or short-key ciphers)Affected if Weak cipher suites such as anonymous ciphers, export-grade ciphers, or ciphers with insufficient key length are enabled
A device is affected if it is a RUGGEDCOM ROX model (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, RX5000) running firmware below version 2.16.0 with weak cryptographic ciphers or deprecated SSL/TLS protocols 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.
dbcve · scoped2.16.0
Upgrade firmware to V2.16.0 or later and explicitly disable weak cipher suites in the device configuration.
RUGGEDCOM ROX firmware V2.16.0
- Obtain the firmware version 2.16.0 or later from Siemens' official support portal (cert-portal.siemens.com) or through your standard Siemens distribution channel
- Review the RUGGEDCOM ROX firmware upgrade procedure in the product documentation for your specific device model
- Download the firmware image for your RUGGEDCOM ROX device (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, or RX5000)
- Follow the standard firmware upgrade process for your device (typically via web interface, CLI, or management tool)
- After upgrading to V2.16.0 or later, verify that weak ciphers are no longer enabled by default and that strong ciphers are configured
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36748 — 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-2023-36748 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