CVE-2023-41627
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 · uneditedO-RAN Software Community ric-plt-lib-rmr v4.9.0 does not validate the source of the routing tables it receives, potentially allowing attackers to send forged routing tables to the device.
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 confidenceThe ric-plt-lib-rmr v4.9.0 library does not validate the source of routing tables it receives, allowing attackers to send forged routing tables that could cause traffic to be misrouted or lead to denial of service.
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= 4.9.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 installed product and library versionLocate the ric-plt-lib-rmr library or O Ran Sc Ric Message Router installation and retrieve its version number. Check package manifests, library metadata, or version files within the installation directory.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.9.0 of ric-plt-lib-rmr or O Ran Sc Ric Message Router.
-
Confirm the routing table feature is in useDetermine whether the Ric Message Router is actively processing routing tables or receiving routing updates from external sources. Check for active listeners, routing configuration files, or network endpoints accepting routing data.Affected if The routing table receiving or processing feature is enabled and the system accepts routing updates from the network.
-
Inspect routing table source validation settingsReview the Ric Message Router configuration for any settings related to source validation, authentication, or verification of routing table origins. Look for parameters controlling trust of incoming routing data.Affected if No source validation, authentication, or verification mechanism is configured for incoming routing tables.
-
Check for digital signature or MAC verificationExamine whether cryptographic validation (digital signatures, MACs, or certificate-based authentication) is enabled for routing table imports. Look for relevant security configuration options.Affected if Cryptographic validation of routing table sources is not implemented or is disabled.
You are affected if the O Ran Sc Ric Message Router version is exactly 4.9.0 and the system accepts routing table updates without validating the source.
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 cryptographic validation of routing table sources (e.g., digital signatures, MACs, or certificate-based authentication) and verify the identity of senders before accepting routing updates.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 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 $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41627 — 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-2023-41627 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