OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2023-53948

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-12-19
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Public exploit 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
Lilac-Reloaded for Nagios 2.0.8 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the autodiscovery feature that allows attackers to inject arbitrary commands. Attackers can exploit the lack of input filtering in the nmap_binary parameter to execute a reverse shell by sending a crafted POST request to the autodiscovery endpoint.

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 confidence

Lilac-Reloaded for Nagios 2.0.8 has a command injection vulnerability in the autodiscovery feature. The nmap_binary parameter lacks input filtering, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary OS commands via crafted POST requests, leading to remote code execution and potential reverse shell establishment.

MitigationImmediately restrict access to the autodiscovery endpoint to authorized users only, implement strict input validation and sanitization on the nmap_binary parameter to prevent command injection, and apply any vendor patches if available.

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

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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 checks

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

  1. Identify the installed version of Lilac-Reloaded for Nagios
    Check the application version through the web interface admin panel, or inspect version files in the webroot (such as version.php, CHANGELOG, or composer.json if accessible)
    Affected if The installed version is 2.0.8 specifically, or falls within the 2.x range prior to any available patch
  2. Verify if the autodiscovery feature is enabled
    Locate the autodiscovery configuration file or settings within the Nagios/Lilac web interface. Look for settings related to network discovery, scanning, or nmap integration
    Affected if The autodiscovery feature is turned on and accessible to users through the web interface
  3. Confirm the nmap_binary parameter is configurable
    Examine the autodiscovery settings page or configuration files for the nmap binary path setting. This is typically found in autodiscovery configuration or network scan settings
    Affected if A configurable nmap_binary or nmap path field exists in the autodiscovery settings that accepts user input
  4. Assess access controls on the autodiscovery endpoint
    Review the web server access controls, authentication settings, and user permissions for the autodiscovery functionality. Check if the endpoint requires authentication and is not exposed to unauthenticated users
    Affected if The autodiscovery feature is accessible to unauthenticated users or users without proper authorization
  5. Inspect the web server logs for suspicious POST requests
    Review access logs (typically in /var/log/httpd or /var/log/nginx) for POST requests to autodiscovery-related endpoints with unusual or injected characters in parameters
    Affected if There are POST requests to the autodiscovery feature containing shell metacharacters (such as ;, |, &, $ , or backticks) in the nmap_binary parameter

Your environment is affected if Lilac-Reloaded for Nagios version 2.0.8 is installed AND the autodiscovery feature is enabled and accessible, particularly if the nmap_binary parameter accepts unsanitized user input.

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

Immediately restrict access to the autodiscovery endpoint to authorized users only, implement strict input validation and sanitization on the nmap_binary parameter to prevent command injection, and apply any vendor patches if available.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $3,000
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-53948 — 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-2023-53948 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