Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2023-2376 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Ui Er-X Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A vulnerability identified as CVE-2023-2376 affects the Web Management Interface component of Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X devices running firmware up to version 2.0.9-hotfix.6. The issue stems from improper handling of the dpi argument, enabling command injection as classified under CWE-77. It received a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.3 and was rated critical in public records, with the flaw residing in an unknown function of the interface.
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by an authenticated user with low privileges. Successful manipulation of the dpi parameter allows an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands, resulting in limited impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability without requiring user interaction.
Public references include exploit code disclosed on GitHub along with entries on Vuldb, confirming that working proof-of-concept material has been released. The associated EPSS score remains flat at a peak and current value of 0.1373, indicating no material increase in observed exploitation interest following disclosure. No official patch or mitigation details appear in the provided references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-33866
Vulnerability Data
A security vulnerability has been detected in Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X up to 2.0.9-hotfix.6. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Web Management Interface. The manipulation of the argument dpi leads to command injection. The attack can be…
more
initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. There are still doubts about whether this vulnerability truly exists. The vendor position is that post-authentication issues are not accepted as vulnerabilities.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Developer assessments and testing (including injection-focused techniques) identify improper neutralization of special elements, and the verifiable flaw remediation corrects them pre-deployment.
Identifies indicators of injection attacks (command, SQL, LDAP, etc.) via anomaly and attack monitoring.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.