CVE-2023-46663
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 bypassing authorization and accessing resources behind protected pages. The application interface allows users to perform certain actions via HTTP requests without performing any validity checks to verify the 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 confidenceSielco PolyEco1000 contains a broken access control vulnerability where the application fails to validate authorization on certain HTTP requests, allowing unauthenticated or unauthorized attackers to bypass authentication mechanisms and access protected pages/resources directly by manipulating HTTP requests.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 the Polyeco device modelAccess the device web interface or check the product label/documentation to determine if the unit is a Polyeco500, Polyeco300, or Polyeco1000Affected if The device is any of these three models and is running one of the affected firmware versions listed below
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the system status or firmware information page, or use the device's administrative console to retrieve the firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version cannot be determined or is not visible through standard administrative interfaces
-
Compare your firmware version against affected versionsMatch your installed version to the list: Polyeco500 = 1.7.0 or 10.16; Polyeco300 = 2.0.0, 2.0.2, or 10.19; Polyeco1000 = 1.9.3, 1.9.4, 2.0.6, or 10.19Affected if The installed firmware version exactly matches one of these versions (e.g., exactly version 1.9.4 or exactly version 10.19)
-
Confirm the web management interface is exposedVerify that the device HTTP/HTTPS management interface is accessible from the network where potential attackers could send requestsAffected if The web interface is externally accessible or on an untrusted network segment
The device is affected if it is a Polyeco500, Polyeco300, or Polyeco1000 running a firmware version that exactly matches one of the listed affected versions (1.7.0, 10.16, 2.0.0, 2.0.2, 10.19, 1.9.3, 1.9.4, or 2.0.6) and has its web interface exposed to any network where unauthenticated requests could be sent.
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 proper server-side authorization validation on all HTTP endpoints to verify user identity and permissions before granting access to protected resources. Conduct a comprehensive access control audit across the application.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-46663 — 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-2023-46663 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