CVE-2023-4102
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 · uneditedQSige login SSO does not have an access control mechanism to verify whether the user requesting a resource has sufficient permissions to do so. As a prerequisite, it is necessary to log into the application.
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 confidenceQSige login SSO has a broken access control vulnerability where authenticated users can access resources or functionality beyond their authorized permissions. The system authenticates users but fails to properly validate authorization for subsequent resource requests, allowing privilege escalation or unauthorized access to sensitive data.
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= 3.0.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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 Qsige Qsige installationLocate the Qsige Qsige application in your environment. Check for the login SSO component typically deployed on your web server or application infrastructure. Look for files or services named 'Qsige' or 'QSIGE' in your installed applications directory.Affected if Qsige Qsige login SSO component is present in the environment
-
Verify installed versionCheck the installed version of Qsige Qsige. This is typically found in the application metadata, about page, or version file within the Qsige installation directory. Common locations include the main application folder or configuration files that store the software version.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.0.0.0
-
Review authorization configurationExamine the application's authorization configuration files. Look for role definitions, permission mappings, and access control lists within the Qsige SSO system. Check if authorization rules are defined for different user roles and resource types.Affected if Authorization configuration is missing, incomplete, or allows role assignments without proper validation rules
-
Test authorization enforcementUsing a test account with limited privileges, attempt to access resources or functionality that should be restricted to higher-privilege users. Compare the actual access granted against the expected access based on the assigned role.Affected if Users can access resources or functions beyond their assigned role permissions
You are affected if Qsige Qsige version 3.0.0.0 is installed and users can access resources beyond their authorized permissions due to missing or incomplete authorization validation.
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 dataImplement and enforce proper authorization checks at every endpoint and for every resource request, ensuring users can only access resources they are explicitly permitted to access. Consider implementing role-based access control (RBAC) with consistent permission validation across all application layers.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-4102 — 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-2023-4102 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