Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2023-5394

HIGH · 7.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-11
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
83/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Server receiving a malformed message that where the GCL message hostname may be too large which may cause a stack overflow; resulting in possible remote code execution. Honeywell recommends updating to the most recent version of the product. See Honeywell Security Notification for recommendations on upgrading and versioning.

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 confidence

Stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Honeywell security products where a malformed GCL message containing an oversized hostname field causes a stack overflow, potentially allowing remote code execution.

MitigationUpdate to the most recent version of the product following the recommendations in the Honeywell Security Notification.

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the Honeywell security product
    Locate the model number and firmware version of the Honeywell security device. This is typically found on the device label, in the web interface under 'About' or 'System Info', or via the device's administrative console.
    Affected if The device is a Honeywell security product and the firmware version predates the security patch for CVE-2023-5394.
  2. Verify GCL message processing is enabled
    Check the device configuration for GCL (Grandstream Configuration Language or similar protocol) message handling settings. This may be in network settings, remote management, or integration settings depending on the product.
    Affected if GCL message processing is enabled and the device accepts incoming GCL messages from network sources.
  3. Inspect the hostname configuration
    Access the device network settings and examine the configured hostname field. Look for any hostname entries that appear unusually long or contain unexpected characters.
    Affected if The hostname field is configured with a value longer than typical limits or was recently modified to an unusually large size.
  4. Review system logs for crash evidence
    Examine the device logs or syslog exports for entries indicating unexpected restarts, stack faults, or memory errors, particularly when GCL messages are processed.
    Affected if Logs show crashes, stack overflow errors, or unexpected reboots coinciding with GCL message activity.
  5. Compare against vendor advisory versions
    Check the Honeywell Security Notification for this CVE to obtain the list of patched versions, then compare your installed firmware version against those recommendations.
    Affected if Your firmware version is older than the patched version listed in the Honeywell advisory for this CVE.

The environment is likely affected if it is a Honeywell security product running firmware that accepts GCL messages and has not been updated to the patched version specified in the Honeywell security notification for CVE-2023-5394.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update to the most recent version of the product following the recommendations in the Honeywell Security Notification.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,570
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-5394 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-5394 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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