CVE-2023-45793
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Siveillance Control (All versions >= V2.8 < V3.1.1). The affected product does not properly check the list of access groups that are assigned to an individual user. This could enable a locally logged on user to gain write privileges for objects where they only have read privileges.
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 confidenceSiveillance Control versions V2.8 through V3.1.0 contain an access control flaw where the system improperly validates access group assignments for users. A locally authenticated user with read-only permissions can exploit this vulnerability to gain write access to objects they should only be able to read, representing a privilege escalation issue.
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>= 2.8, < 3.1.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 Siveillance Control versionCheck the software version through the Siveillance Control application interface, Windows Programs and Features, or version information in the installation directoryAffected if The installed version is 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.0, or 3.1.0 (any version >= 2.8 but < 3.1.1)
-
Verify existence of read-only user accountsReview user accounts in the Siveillance Control user management console to confirm the presence of users assigned read-only access rolesAffected if Read-only user accounts exist in the system
-
Check access group assignment configurationExamine the access group assignments for users through the Siveillance Control administration panel to see how read-only users are mapped to object access groupsAffected if Users with read-only roles are assigned to access groups that grant broader permissions than intended
-
Test privilege boundary if possibleUsing a read-only user account, attempt to modify an object that should be read-only to verify if write access is incorrectly grantedAffected if A read-only user can successfully modify objects they should only be able to view
The environment is affected if Siveillance Control version is 2.8 through 3.1.0 AND read-only users can gain unintended write access to objects via access group misconfiguration.
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 data3.1.1
Upgrade Siveillance Control to version V3.1.1 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Alternatively, restrict local user access and monitor for unauthorized privilege escalation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-45793 — 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-2023-45793 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