CVE-2023-46664
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 improper access control vulnerability when the application provides direct access to objects based on user-supplied input. As a result of this vulnerability attackers can bypass authorization and access resources behind protected pages.
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 suffers from an improper access control vulnerability (Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR) where the application uses user-supplied input to directly access objects without proper authorization validation. This allows unauthenticated or unauthorized attackers to bypass authentication mechanisms and access sensitive resources residing behind protected pages.
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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 device model and firmware versionAccess the device web interface and check the firmware version in the system information or about page. Alternatively, check HTTP headers or the login page source for version strings.Affected if The firmware version matches one of the affected versions: Polyeco500 (=1.7.0, =10.16), Polyeco300 (=2.0.0, =2.0.2, =10.19), Polyeco1000 (=1.9.3, =1.9.4, =2.0.6, =10.19)
-
Verify web interface is accessibleConfirm the device web management interface is reachable on the network by accessing the device IP address over HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The web interface is exposed and reachable (required for this web-based vulnerability to be exploitable)
-
Test for unauthenticated access to protected resourcesAttempt to access protected pages or endpoints directly (without logging in) by manipulating URL parameters or object references. Compare your installed version to the affected ranges.Affected if Protected resources can be accessed without authentication or authorization validation, indicating the IDOR vulnerability is present
You are affected if your Polyeco device firmware matches any of the listed versions AND the web interface allows unauthorized access to protected resources without proper authorization checks.
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 authorization checks on all object references to verify the authenticated user has permission to access the requested resource, and avoid using direct object references in URLs or parameters without validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-46664 — 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-2023-46664 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