Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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-2023-33831 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Frangoteam Fuxa. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 2% 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.
CVE-2023-33831 is a remote code execution vulnerability in FUXA version 1.1.13. The flaw exists in the /api/runscript endpoint and permits arbitrary command execution when an attacker supplies a specially crafted POST request. The issue is tracked under CWE-77 and received a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 reflecting network-accessible attack complexity that requires no authentication or user interaction.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit the endpoint directly over the network to run operating-system commands on the host. Successful exploitation yields full control of the process context, enabling arbitrary code execution with impacts across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Public proof-of-concept material, including exploit code and demonstration videos, has been published on GitHub. The CVE maintains an EPSS score of 0.9335, indicating a high likelihood of exploitation attempts. No official vendor advisory or patch information appears among the supplied references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-2584
Vulnerability Data
A remote command execution (RCE) vulnerability in the /api/runscript endpoint of FUXA 1.1.13 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted POST request.
- 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.