CVE-2023-6093
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 · uneditedA clickjacking vulnerability has been identified in OnCell G3150A-LTE Series firmware versions v1.3 and prior. This vulnerability is caused by incorrectly restricts frame objects, which can lead to user confusion about which interface the user is interacting with. This vulnerability may lead the attacker to trick the user into interacting with the application.
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 confidenceA clickjacking vulnerability in OnCell G3150A-LTE Series firmware allows attackers to overlay the web interface with invisible or disguised frames, tricking users into performing unintended actions. The vulnerability stems from the web application failing to properly restrict which domains can embed it in frames (missing X-Frame-Options or Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors headers).
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<= 1.3CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm the device model and firmware versionAccess the OnCell G3150A-LTE web interface and navigate to System Settings or Status page to locate the firmware version informationAffected if Firmware version is 1.3 or lower (any version <= 1.3)
-
Test for X-Frame-Options headerSend an HTTP request to the web interface (port 80 or 443) and inspect the response headers for X-Frame-Options: DENY or X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGINAffected if The X-Frame-Options header is missing from the response
-
Test for CSP frame-ancestors directiveInspect the Content-Security-Policy HTTP header returned by the web interface and check if the frame-ancestors directive is definedAffected if The Content-Security-Policy header is missing or does not include the frame-ancestors directive
-
Verify clickjacking vulnerability with a test pageCreate a simple HTML page with an iframe pointing to the OnCell web interface URL and open it in a browser; if the page loads without being blocked, the interface is vulnerable to embeddingAffected if The web interface successfully renders inside the iframe from an external domain
A user is affected if the firmware version is 1.3 or lower AND neither X-Frame-Options nor Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors headers are present in the web interface responses.
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 X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN header, and/or Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors directive on the web server to prevent the interface from being embedded in untrusted frames. If no vendor patch is available, consider network-level controls to restrict access to the management interface.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6093 — 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-2023-6093 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