CVE-2023-49223
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 · uneditedPrecor touchscreen console P62, P80, and P82 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information because the root password is stored in /etc/passwd. An attacker could exploit this to extract files and obtain sensitive information.
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 Precor P62, P80, and P82 touchscreen consoles store the root password directly in /etc/passwd, which is world-readable on Unix/Linux systems. This allows any attacker who can access the system to obtain the password hash and potentially crack it, then use root access to extract files and sensitive data.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 console modelCheck the system model or product information to confirm if the device is a Precor P62, P80, or P82 touchscreen console. This may be visible in system documentation, boot messages, or product labeling.Affected if The device is a Precor P62, P80, or P82 console and is running its default firmware.
-
Locate the root user entry in /etc/passwdOn the console system, examine the /etc/passwd file using a command such as 'cat /etc/passwd' or 'grep ^root /etc/passwd'. This file should be world-readable by default on Unix/Linux systems.Affected if The /etc/passwd file exists and contains a root user entry.
-
Inspect the password field for root userExamine the second field (the password field) of the root entry in /etc/passwd. The standard format is root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash where the second field should contain either 'x' (indicating the password hash is in /etc/shadow) or '*' (indicating no password).Affected if The password field contains a password hash string (such as $6$... or other hash format) instead of 'x' or '*'.
-
Verify /etc/shadow exists and is properly configuredCheck if /etc/shadow exists and contains the root user entry. On properly configured systems, password hashes are stored in /etc/shadow which has restricted permissions (typically 0600).Affected if The root password hash is present in /etc/passwd instead of /etc/shadow, meaning the hash is world-readable.
A user is affected if the root password hash appears in the world-readable /etc/passwd file instead of the restricted /etc/shadow file, which is indicated by a hash string (not 'x' or '*') in the second field of the root entry.
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 dataRemove the root password from /etc/passwd and properly configure password hashing in /etc/shadow (or disable root password authentication entirely in favor of key-based auth), then verify legitimate administrative access still functions.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-49223 — 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-2023-49223 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