CVE-2023-50702
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 · uneditedSikka SSCWindowsService 5 2023-09-14 executes a program as LocalSystem but allows full control by low-privileged users (and low-privileged users have write access to %PROGRAMDATA%\SSCService). Consequently, low-privileged users can execute arbitrary code as LocalSystem.
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 · high confidenceThe Sikka SSCWindowsService 5 service runs as LocalSystem but grants low-privileged users full write access to the %PROGRAMDATA%\SSCService directory. This allows attackers with low-privileged access to replace service executables or DLLs, achieving arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check if Sikka SSCWindowsService 5 is installedOpen Services (services.msc) and look for a service named 'Sikka SSCWindowsService 5', or run: Get-Service -Name '*SSC*'Affected if The service exists on the system
-
Verify the service executable pathRun: Get-WmiObject Win32_Service | Where-Object {$_.Name -like '*SSC*'} | Select-Object Name, PathNameAffected if The service executable is located under %PROGRAMDATA%\SSCService
-
Check if the SSCService directory existsRun: Test-Path $env:PROGRAMDATA\SSCService or navigate to C:\ProgramData\SSCService in File ExplorerAffected if The directory C:\ProgramData\SSCService exists on the system
-
Inspect ACLs on the SSCService directoryRun: (Get-Acl $env:PROGRAMDATA\SSCService).Access | Select-Object IdentityReference, FileSystemRightsAffected if Users or Users group has Write or FullControl permissions on the directory
-
Confirm the service runs as LocalSystemRun: Get-WmiObject Win32_Service | Where-Object {$_.Name -like '*SSC*'} | Select-Object Name, StartNameAffected if The service StartName is 'LocalSystem' or 'NT AUTHORITY\System'
A user is affected if the Sikka SSCWindowsService 5 is installed, runs as LocalSystem, and the %PROGRAMDATA%\SSCService directory grants write access to low-privileged users.
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 dataRestrict write permissions on the %PROGRAMDATA%\SSCService directory to only allow trusted administrators and the service account; verify the service executes only from locations with proper ACLs.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-50702 — 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-2023-50702 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