CVE-2023-36749
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 webserver of the affected devices support insecure TLS 1.0 protocol. An attacker could achieve a man-in-the-middle attack and compromise confidentiality and integrity of data.
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 confidenceThe webserver on RUGGEDCOM ROX devices (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, RX5000) supports TLS 1.0, an outdated protocol with known cryptographic weaknesses. An attacker performing a man-in-the-middle attack can exploit TLS 1.0 vulnerabilities to decrypt or manipulate encrypted traffic, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of data in transit.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 device modelAccess the device web interface or use SNMP to determine the exact RUGGEDCOM ROX model number (MX5000, MX5000RE, RX1400, RX1500, RX1501, RX1510, RX1511, RX1512, RX1524, RX1536, or RX5000)Affected if The device is any of these models and the firmware version is below 2.16.0
-
Check firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the System Information or Diagnostics page to view the installed firmware version, or use the command line interface with 'show version' or similar commandAffected if The firmware version shown is less than 2.16.0 for the identified model
-
Verify TLS 1.0 is enabledUse an SSL/TLS scanning tool such as nmap with the ssl-enum-ciphers script (nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443 <device_ip>) to probe the webserver and check which TLS versions are advertised as supportedAffected if The scan output shows TLS 1.0 as an available or enabled protocol
If the device is a RUGGEDCOM ROX model listed in the affected products with firmware version below 2.16.0 AND TLS 1.0 protocol is enabled on the webserver, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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
Disable TLS 1.0 protocol support on the device webservers and ensure only TLS 1.2 or higher is enabled, or upgrade firmware to V2.16.0 or later which addresses this vulnerability.
Firmware V2.16.0 or later
- Obtain firmware version 2.16.0 or later from Siemens' official support portal (cert-portal.siemens.com or Siemens industrial support)
- Review the firmware release notes to understand any configuration or compatibility changes
- Plan the firmware upgrade considering network operational requirements
- Upload the firmware version 2.16.0 or later to the affected Ruggedcom ROX device via the web-based management interface
- Apply the firmware upgrade following the device's standard upgrade procedure
- After upgrade, verify that the webserver no longer supports TLS 1.0 and only accepts TLS 1.2 or higher
- Confirm the vulnerability is remediated by verifying secure TLS configuration in the device settings
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36749 — 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-2023-36749 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