CVE-2023-41806
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 · uneditedImproper Privilege Management vulnerability in Pandora FMS on all allows Privilege Escalation. This vulnerability causes that a bad privilege assignment could cause a DOS attack that affects the availability of the Pandora FMS server. This issue affects Pandora FMS: from 700 through 773.
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 confidenceImproper Privilege Management vulnerability in Pandora FMS versions 700-773 allows privilege escalation, where a low-privileged user can gain elevated access. The vulnerability also enables a denial-of-service condition that impacts server availability, likely through improper handling of privilege assignments.
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>= 700, <= 773CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm Pandora FMS installationLocate the Pandora FMS application installation directory and identify the main executable or service running the softwareAffected if Pandora FMS is found to be running on the system
-
Determine installed Pandora FMS versionAccess the system information or about page within the Pandora FMS web interface, or run a version check command if available via CLIAffected if The installed version falls within the range of 700 to 773 inclusive
-
Review user accounts and privilege levelsAccess the user management section in the Pandora FMS administration panel and enumerate all user accounts and their assigned permission levelsAffected if Low-privileged user accounts exist that should not have elevated access
-
Inspect for unauthorized privilege escalationCompare current user role assignments against documented baseline permissions, looking for any users granted admin or elevated roles unexpectedlyAffected if Any user account shows a higher privilege level than originally assigned or documented baseline
-
Check for denial-of-service indicatorsMonitor server performance metrics, check for unexpected service interruptions or crashes, and review system logs for errors related to privilege handlingAffected if The server experiences availability issues or crashes that correlate with privilege operations
A system is affected if Pandora FMS versions 700 through 773 are installed and low-privileged users have gained elevated access or the server shows DoS symptoms related to privilege operations
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 dataUpgrade Pandora FMS to a version beyond 773 where the vulnerability is patched. In the interim, restrict user privileges to the minimum necessary and monitor for unusual privilege escalation attempts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41806 — 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-2023-41806 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