Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-33530 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Tenda G103 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 31% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability CVE-2023-33530 is a command injection flaw tracked under CWE-77 that affects the Tenda G103 Gigabit GPON Terminal running firmware version V1.0.0.5. It received a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8, driven by network attack vector, low complexity, and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An attacker who first obtains web management privileges can inject operating-system commands through the management interface, resulting in the ability to spawn a shell and execute arbitrary code on the device.
Public references consist of the vendor site and a GitHub repository containing a proof-of-concept PDF that demonstrates the remote code execution path; no vendor advisory or patch information is supplied in these sources. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0688 with no material rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-37689
Vulnerability Data
There is a command injection vulnerability in the Tenda G103 Gigabit GPON Terminal with firmware version V1.0.0.5. If an attacker gains web management privileges, they can inject commands gaining shell privileges.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training that reduce command injection defects, but leaves a minority slice (e.g. incomplete implementation of those practices, outsourced development without full assurance, or post-SDLC changes) where the weakness can still arise and be exploitable.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. distrust external input, secure session control, data validation/sanitization, least privilege) and design reviews that can stop command injection from being introduced, but this is only a minority slice of CWE-77 because the weakness can still arise in code that bypasses those principles, in non-reviewed components, or in runtime injection vectors the architecture review does not reach.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-77, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.