Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-3454 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Broadcom Fabric Operating System. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique NTDS (T1003.003); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
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-2023-3454 is a remote code execution vulnerability in Brocade Fabric OS versions after 9.0 and before 9.2.0. The flaw, tracked under CWE-78, resides in the switch firmware and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.6 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required credentials or user interaction.
An unauthenticated attacker can send specially crafted input over the network to execute arbitrary code on the affected Brocade switch, resulting in full root-level compromise of the device and its management functions.
Broadcom and NetApp have published security advisories that direct customers to the fixed release and associated remediation guidance.
The EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0502 on 2026-05-12 before receding to the current value of 0.0343, indicating that exploitation interest increased after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-44116
Vulnerability Data
Remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in Brocade Fabric OS after v9.0 and before v9.2.0 could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code and use this to gain root access to the Brocade switch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.