CVE-2023-40464
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 · uneditedSeveral versions of ALEOS, including ALEOS 4.16.0, use a hardcoded SSL certificate and private key. An attacker with access to these items could potentially perform a man in the middle attack between the ACEManager client and ACEManager server.
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 confidenceALEOS firmware versions including 4.16.0 contain a hardcoded SSL certificate and private key embedded in the software. An attacker who obtains these credentials could perform a man-in-the-middle attack against ACEManager client-server communications, intercepting or manipulating traffic between them.
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<= 4.16.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 ALEOS firmware versionAccess the device administration interface or use AT commands to retrieve the firmware version. Common methods include: logging into the web-based ACEManager interface and checking the firmware/system information page, or sending the AT command 'AT&F' or checking system logs via 'AT!gcb?' or similar manufacturer-specific commands.Affected if The firmware version displayed is 4.16.0 or any version lower (e.g., 4.15.x, 4.14.x, etc.)
-
Confirm ACEManager is in useCheck if ACEManager remote management service is enabled on the device. This is typically found in the device web interface under Services, Remote Management, or ACEmanager settings. Also check if port 443 or the ACEManager service is listening.Affected if ACEManager is enabled and configured for client-server communications, making the hardcoded certificate relevant to the deployment
-
Check for SSL/TLS configurationInspect the ACEManager SSL/TLS settings in the device configuration. Look for SSL certificate configuration pages in the web interface or check configuration files if accessible via SSH/TFTP. Pay attention to whether a default or embedded certificate is in use.Affected if The device is configured to use SSL/TLS for ACEManager communications with the default embedded certificate still active
The environment is affected if the ALEOS firmware version is 4.16.0 or lower AND ACEManager with SSL/TLS is enabled for remote communications.
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.
From vendor dataReplace the hardcoded SSL certificate and private key with dynamically generated or properly managed credentials, and ensure ACEManager properly validates server certificates to prevent MITM attacks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-40464 — 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-2023-40464 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