CVE-2023-37400
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 · uneditedIBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 could allow a local user to escalate their privileges due to insecure credential storage. IBM X-Force ID: 259677.
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 confidenceIBM Aspera Faspex versions 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 store credentials insecurely, allowing a local authenticated user to escalate their privileges to administrative levels. The vulnerability stems from improper handling or protection of sensitive credential data within the application's storage mechanism.
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>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.8CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 IBM Aspera Faspex versionRun the command to display the Faspex application version, typically via the admin interface or command-line tool provided with the installationAffected if The installed version is 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 (anything >= 5.0.0 but < 5.0.8)
-
Confirm local authentication is enabledInspect the authentication configuration settings within the Faspex admin console or configuration files to determine if local user authentication is activeAffected if Local authentication method is enabled, allowing local users to authenticate to the system
-
Verify presence of local user accountsCheck the user management section of the Faspex admin interface or query the user database to identify locally defined user accountsAffected if One or more local user accounts exist in the system
A system is affected by this vulnerability if IBM Aspera Faspex version 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 is installed with local authentication and local user accounts enabled, allowing a local authenticated user to potentially access insecurely stored credentials.
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 · scoped5.0.8
Upgrade IBM Aspera Faspex to version 5.0.8 or later which contains the security fix for proper credential storage and protection.
Aspera Faspex 5.0.8
- Before upgrading, perform a complete backup of the current Aspera Faspex installation and its database
- Verify that your current environment meets the system requirements for version 5.0.8
- Review IBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.8 release notes for any specific migration or pre-upgrade requirements
- Stop all Aspera services before beginning the upgrade process
- Install Aspera Faspex version 5.0.8 using standard upgrade procedures (refer to IBM Aspera documentation for your deployment method)
- After installation, verify that all services start successfully
- Confirm the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version and ensuring the application is functioning properly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-37400 — 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-2023-37400 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