CVE-2023-34102
Avohq Avo ≤ 2.33.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-34102 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Avohq Avo. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Reflective Code Loading (T1620); ranked in the top 26% 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.
Avo is an open source Ruby on Rails framework for building admin panels. The vulnerability exists in its polymorphic field type, which accepts and stores class names supplied through user input during record updates without performing backend validation. This flaw, tracked under CWE-20 and CWE-470, received a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.3 and was addressed in commit ec117882ddb1b519481bdd046dc3cfa4474e6e17.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges can supply a manipulated class reference over the network. When an administrator later views the altered record, the application may execute arbitrary code, exhibit unexpected behavior, or crash.
The project security advisory and associated commit state that the issue is resolved in the referenced patch and recommend restricting access from untrusted users until a subsequent release is deployed. The associated EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0887 on 2026-02-28 before receding to its current value of 0.0224.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-1744
Vulnerability Data
Avo is an open source ruby on rails admin panel creation framework. The polymorphic field type stores the classes to operate on when updating a record with user input, and does not validate them in the back end. This can…
more
lead to unexpected behavior, remote code execution, or application crashes when viewing a manipulated record. This issue has been addressed in commit `ec117882d` which is expected to be included in subsequent releases. Users are advised to limit access to untrusted users until a new release is made.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
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.
Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.
Externally controlled class or code selection can be resolved and invoked inside the chamber, surfacing unsafe reflection without system impact.
Directly implements checks on information inputs to reject invalid data before processing.
Spam protection mechanisms perform filtering and detection on inbound/outbound messages, directly compensating for missing or weak input validation of unsolicited content.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
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 directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Access restrictions limit who can supply the malicious input but do not address the reflection flaw itself.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20