CVE-2023-41184
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 · uneditedTP-Link Tapo C210 ActiveCells Stack-based Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of TP-Link Tapo C210 IP cameras. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the handling of the ActiveCells parameter of the CreateRules and ModifyRules APIs. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a fixed-length stack-based buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. . Was ZDI-CAN-20589.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in TP-Link Tapo C210 IP cameras. The ActiveCells parameter in CreateRules and ModifyRules APIs lacks proper length validation before copying user-supplied data to a fixed-size stack buffer, allowing authenticated attackers (with bypassable auth) to achieve RCE as root.
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= 1.3.0CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 device modelAccess the camera's web interface or check the device label/mobile app to confirm the exact model is TP-Link Tapo C210Affected if Device is not a TP-Link Tapo C210 model
-
Determine firmware versionLog into the camera's web UI (usually at 192.168.x.x) and navigate to Settings > Device Info, or check via the Tapo mobile app under Device Settings > Firmware VersionAffected if Firmware version is 1.3.0
-
Confirm API accessibilityCheck if the camera's HTTP management interface is exposed to the network. Attempt to access the base URL (http://<camera-ip>) from a browser or curl requestAffected if API interface is accessible on the network
-
Verify CreateRules/ModifyRules API presenceSend a crafted HTTP POST request to the camera's CGI endpoint for CreateRules or ModifyRules (typically /cgi-bin/ or /api/) and observe if the ActiveCells parameter is acceptedAffected if CreateRules or ModifyRules API endpoints accept the ActiveCells parameter
A user is affected if they have a TP-Link Tapo C210 camera running firmware version 1.3.0 with the CreateRules or ModifyRules API accessible on the network.
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 dataApply vendor firmware patches when available; until then, restrict network exposure of camera management interfaces and monitor for exploitation attempts.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $6,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41184 — 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-2023-41184 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