CVE-2023-51732
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability exist in Skyworth Router CM5100, version 4.1.1.24, due to insufficient validation of user supplied input for the IPsec Tunnel Name parameter at its web interface. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by supplying specially crafted input to the parameter at the web interface of the vulnerable targeted system. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow the attacker to perform stored XSS attacks on the targeted system.
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 confidenceStored XSS vulnerability in Skyworth Router CM5100 v4.1.1.24 web interface. The IPsec Tunnel Name parameter lacks proper input validation, allowing injection of malicious scripts that persist and execute when users access the IPsec configuration page.
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= 4.1.1.24CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Verify firmware versionAccess the router web interface or check system information page to confirm the installed firmware version is exactly 4.1.1.24Affected if Firmware version equals 4.1.1.24
-
Confirm web interface accessVerify you can access the router's web management interface via HTTP/HTTPS on the router's LAN or WAN IP addressAffected if Web interface is reachable and authenticated
-
Check IPsec feature statusNavigate to the IPsec VPN configuration section in the web interface to determine if IPsec tunnel functionality is enabled or configurableAffected if IPsec feature is present and accessible in the web interface
-
Inspect IPsec Tunnel Name parameterLocate the IPsec tunnel configuration page and examine the Tunnel Name field for any existing entries or examine the page source for unescaped HTML characters in rendered tunnel namesAffected if The Tunnel Name field exists and can contain user-supplied input without sanitization
A user is affected if the router runs firmware version 4.1.1.24, the web interface is accessible, and the IPsec Tunnel Name parameter accepts and renders unsanitized input.
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 strict input validation and output encoding for the IPsec Tunnel Name parameter; validate length, character set, and sanitize special HTML/JavaScript characters before storage and before rendering.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-51732 — 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-2023-51732 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