CVE-2023-6835
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 · uneditedMultiple WSO2 products have been identified as vulnerable due to lack of server-side input validation in the Forum feature, API rating could be manipulated.
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 confidenceMultiple WSO2 products lack server-side input validation in the Forum feature, allowing attackers to manipulate API ratings. This input validation flaw could enable unauthorized modification of rating data through crafted API requests.
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= 2.2.0= 2.5.0= 2.6.0= 3.3.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify installed WSO2 product and versionCheck the product version from the WSO2 management console or by inspecting the product-info.xml file in the installation directoryAffected if The installed version matches 2.2.0, 2.5.0, or 2.6.0 for API Manager, or 3.3.1 for IOT Server
-
Confirm Forum feature is enabledNavigate to the WSO2 management console, go to Features > Installed Features, or check the registry configuration at /_system/governance/apimgt/applicationdata/tenant-features for Forum module registrationAffected if The Forum feature (com.wso2.carbon.forum) is installed and activated in the environment
-
Verify API rating endpoint accessibilityCheck API documentation or attempt a GET request to the Forum API endpoint (typically /api/forum/v1/{apiId}/ratings) to confirm the rating functionality is exposedAffected if The API rating endpoint is reachable without additional authentication beyond basic OAuth or session auth, indicating it could accept manipulated requests
-
Inspect API rating configurationReview the api-rating.xml or rating-config.xml configuration files in the repository/conf/forum directory to verify if server-side validation exists for rating valuesAffected if The rating configuration lacks bounds checking or whitelist validation for rating values (1-5 scale) or user origin verification
A user is affected if they are running one of the specific versions (2.2.0, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 for API Manager or 3.3.1 for IOT Server) AND the Forum feature with API rating functionality is enabled and accessible.
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 server-side input validation for all API rating operations in the Forum feature to ensure rating values fall within acceptable bounds and originate from legitimate sources.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6835 — 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-2023-6835 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