Aspera FaspexApplication · Ibm

CVE-2023-37396

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-19
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.0.8 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click

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 · unedited
IBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 could allow a local user to obtain sensitive information due to improper encryption of certain data. IBM X-Force ID: 259671.

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 confidence

IBM Aspera Faspex versions 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 contains improper encryption implementation for certain data, allowing a local authenticated user to access sensitive information that should be protected. The vulnerability has low attack complexity and requires low privileges but achieves high confidentiality impact.

MitigationUpgrade IBM Aspera Faspex to version 5.0.8 or later per IBM's security bulletin. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict local access to the system and review data-at-rest encryption configurations.

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
Aspera FaspexApplication
Affected:>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.8

CVSS 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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed IBM Aspera Faspex version
    Run the command to display the Faspex application version, typically via the admin interface, command-line tool, or by inspecting the application metadata
    Affected if The displayed version falls within the range 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 (>= 5.0.0 and < 5.0.8)
  2. Confirm the running version matches the detected version
    Verify that the running instance version matches the installed version number by checking the service status or admin dashboard
    Affected if The running instance version is 5.0.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.0.4, 5.0.5, 5.0.6, or 5.0.7
  3. Determine if data-at-rest encryption is configured
    Inspect the encryption configuration settings in the Faspex admin panel or configuration files to see if encryption for stored data is enabled
    Affected if Data-at-rest encryption is configured and the version is within the affected range, making the improperly encrypted data vulnerable to local authenticated users

The environment is affected if IBM Aspera Faspex version 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 is installed and data-at-rest encryption settings are in use, allowing a local authenticated user to access sensitive information.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.0.8 or later
Fixed in 5.0.8
Interim mitigation

Upgrade IBM Aspera Faspex to version 5.0.8 or later per IBM's security bulletin. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict local access to the system and review data-at-rest encryption configurations.

Recommended fix High confidence

Aspera Faspex 5.0.8

  1. Verify current Aspera Faspex version by checking the application interface or using command line tools
  2. Review current backup procedures and ensure recent backups exist before upgrading
  3. Consult IBM Aspera documentation for upgrade prerequisites and requirements
  4. Download Aspera Faspex version 5.0.8 from official IBM or Aspera channels
  5. Follow standard upgrade procedure: stop Faspex services, upgrade the software, verify installation, restart services
  6. After upgrade, verify that the version shows 5.0.8 and confirm normal operation

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Aspera Faspex Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-37396 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-37396 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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