CVE-2023-49610
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 · uneditedMachineSense FeverWarn Raspberry Pi-based devices lack input sanitization, which could allow an attacker on an adjacent network to send a message running commands or could overflow the stack.
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 MachineSense FeverWarn Raspberry Pi-based devices suffer from insufficient input validation, allowing an adjacent network attacker to send specially crafted messages that could trigger command injection to execute arbitrary commands or cause a stack-based buffer overflow.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Confirm device is a FeverWarn systemCheck the device hostname, branding files, or Raspberry Pi serial numbers against MachineSense FeverWarn documentation. Look for /etc/hostname containing 'feverwarn' or check for FeverWarn-specific configuration files in /opt or /home directories.Affected if The device is identified as a MachineSense FeverWarn Raspberry Pi-based temperature screening device.
-
Verify FeverWarn firmware is installedList all running processes and look for FeverWarn-specific services or binaries. Check for processes with 'fever' or 'feverwarn' in the name. Check /var/log for FeverWarn service logs.Affected if FeverWarn firmware or associated services are running on the device.
-
Identify network-exposed servicesRun 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp' to list all listening network services. Identify any service that accepts external TCP/UDP connections on the device.Affected if The device has network services listening for connections from adjacent network attackers.
-
Check input processing componentsInspect the FeverWarn application directories for code that handles incoming messages. Look for network message handlers, serial input processors, or API endpoints that parse external data.Affected if The device processes external input messages without proper validation.
-
Assess network accessibilityDetermine if the device is on a shared or untrusted network segment. Check the device's IP configuration and firewall rules. Verify if adjacent network users can reach the device's listening ports.Affected if The device is accessible from adjacent network segments without proper network segmentation.
If the system is a MachineSense FeverWarn device with FeverWarn firmware running and accessible from an adjacent network, it is affected by this vulnerability since all firmware versions lack proper input validation on network message processing.
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 robust input sanitization and bounds checking on all input processing paths; if possible, network segment the device and restrict adjacent network access.
- 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-2023-49610 — 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-2023-49610 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