CVE-2023-34348
Aveva Pi Server ≤ 2018
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2023-34348 is a high-severity Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-703) vulnerability in Aveva Pi Server. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-38428
Vulnerability Data
AVEVA PI Server versions 2023 and 2018 SP3 P05 and prior contain a vulnerability that could allow an unauthenticated user to remotely crash the PI Message Subsystem of a PI Server, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation explicitly exercises unusual conditions to find missing or incorrect checks.
Enforces failure to a known state while preserving required properties, limiting impact of unhandled exceptions.
Input validation directly requires checking for unexpected or malformed conditions before they propagate.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled exceptional conditions.
Requires application of security engineering principles that include robust exception and error handling during design.
Requires generation of safe, actionable error messages that directly addresses proper handling of exceptional conditions.
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.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks like SQL injection) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself remove, fix, or eliminate any exceptional-condition handling defects already present in code.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (fail securely, least privilege, defense-in-depth, distrust external input, assume-breach) plus design reviews that can catch and stop many but not all mishandlings of exceptional conditions before they reach production code; a bounded remainder (e.g. subtle runtime error paths, library-level faults, or post-review regressions) can still be present and exploitable.
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-703, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-755, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-274, CWE-280, CWE-333.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-754, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-354.