CVE-2023-2758
Contec Conprosys Hmi System ≤ 3.5.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2023-2758 is a low-severity Improper Control of Interaction Frequency (CWE-799) vulnerability in Contec Conprosys Hmi System. Its CVSS base score is 3.7 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Brute Force (T1110); ranked in the top 39% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-34216
Vulnerability Data
A denial of service vulnerability exists in Contec CONPROSYS HMI System versions 3.5.2 and prior. When there is a time-zone mismatch in certain configuration files, a remote, unauthenticated attacker may deny logins for an extended period of time.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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.
The control requires defining frequency, timing, and approval for security interactions, directly addressing uncontrolled interaction rates.
Allocation policies inherently restrict interaction frequency, reducing the impact of excessive requests.
Spam protection explicitly controls interaction frequency by detecting and acting on bulk unsolicited messages from external sources.
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.
Protecting networks from unauthorized usage can incorporate rate limiting to bound interaction frequency.
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.
Network security controls can enforce rate limiting and throttling at the perimeter.
Application security requirements explicitly include controls on interaction frequency and throttling.
Secure architecture principles recommend rate-limiting and resource-management mechanisms.
Secure coding practices can embed input-frequency and throttling checks in code.
Capacity management directly limits request rates and resource exhaustion that CWE-799 describes.