CVE-2023-38122
Inductiveautomation Ignition ≤ 8.1.26
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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-2023-38122 is a high-severity Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains (CWE-942) vulnerability in Inductiveautomation Ignition. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Steganography (T1001.002); ranked in the top 21% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-41948
Vulnerability Data
Inductive Automation Ignition OPC UA Quick Client Permissive Cross-domain Policy Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Inductive Automation Ignition. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing…
more
authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the configuration of the web server. The issue results from the lack of appropriate Content Security Policy headers. An attacker can leverage this in conjunction with other vulnerabilities to execute code in the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-20539.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.3V3.4.6V3.5.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement requires approved authorizations and would reject policies permitting untrusted domains.
Boundary protection at external interfaces stops unauthorized cross-domain communication allowed by permissive policies.
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.
Vulnerability identification processes can surface permissive policy misconfigurations.
Hardened configuration baselines and reviews directly prevent permissive CSP or cross-domain policies.
Secure SDLC activities include review and testing of web security policies to avoid untrusted domains.
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.
Network security policies can restrict cross-domain communication but do not specifically mandate strict CSP or cross-domain policy configuration.
Security of network services includes defining allowed endpoints, which can limit untrusted domains but does not directly address web-client policy files.
Web filtering can block untrusted domains at the network level, partially mitigating permissive cross-domain policies.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as injections) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or configure any cross-domain policy, CSP, or domain whitelist that would stop exploitation of a permissive policy allowing untrusted domains.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design, defense-in-depth, least-privilege, assume-breach, distrust-external-input, and explicit review against known attack patterns (including permissive cross-domain policies); this stops exploitation in many but not all cases (e.g. when the policy is supplied by a third-party component or when the review misses a novel untrusted domain).
Secure coding practices require proper configuration of CSP and cross-domain policies to avoid untrusted domains.