CVE-2023-46661
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 · uneditedSielco PolyEco1000 is vulnerable to an attacker escalating their privileges by modifying passwords in POST requests.
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 Sielco PolyEco1000 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability where authenticated users can modify passwords via crafted POST requests without proper authorization validation, allowing attackers to elevate their privileges to administrative levels.
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= 1.7.0= 10.16= 2.0.0= 2.0.2= 10.19= 1.9.3= 1.9.4= 2.0.6= 10.19CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the Sielco PolyEco modelAccess the device web interface or check device documentation/labels to confirm whether the device is a Polyeco500, Polyeco300, or Polyeco1000 model.Affected if The device is not one of these three models.
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the firmware/version information page, or use the device's CLI or management console to retrieve the firmware version string.Affected if The firmware version matches one of the affected versions: 1.7.0, 10.16 (Polyeco500); 2.0.0, 2.0.2, 10.19 (Polyeco300); 1.9.3, 1.9.4, 2.0.6, 10.19 (Polyeco1000).
-
Verify the web management interface is enabledCheck the device configuration settings or network exposure to confirm the HTTP/HTTPS web management interface is currently active and reachable.Affected if The web interface is enabled and accessible on the network.
-
Confirm user authentication is configuredCheck the device user management settings to verify that local user accounts exist and authentication is required for web interface access.Affected if At least one user account is configured and authentication is required for web interface access.
-
Inspect logs for password modification eventsReview device logs, system logs, or audit logs for any password change operations, particularly those initiated by non-administrator accounts.Affected if Logs show password modification requests from standard user accounts that were not initiated by administrators.
The environment is affected if the device is a Polyeco500, Polyeco300, or Polyeco1000 model running one of the listed firmware versions, the web interface is enabled, and user authentication is configured, allowing any authenticated user to potentially modify passwords without proper authorization.
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 patches if available; otherwise implement strict network segmentation and enforce role-based access controls to limit exposure to the web interface.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $3,488.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-46661 — 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-2023-46661 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