Security Resilience

CVE-2023-39293

RCE in Mitel Mivoice Office 400 ≤ 7.0.9281

Published
14 August 2023
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.017 76th percentile
Risk Priority 74 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2023-39293 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Mitel Mivoice Office 400. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, ranked in the top 24% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A Command Injection vulnerability has been identified in the MiVoice Office 400 SMB Controller through 1.2.5.23 which could allow a malicious actor to execute arbitrary commands within the context of the system.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-39292Same product: Mitel Mivoice Office 400
CVE-2022-40765Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2024-37569Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2023-31460Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2024-37570Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2024-35285Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2023-31457Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2024-35315Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2025-67823Same vendor: Mitel
CVE-2024-30160Same vendor: Mitel

Affected Assets

mitel
mivoice office 400
≤ 7.0.9281
mitel
mivoice office 400 smb controller firmware
≤ 1.2.5.23

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.

blocks

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.

blocks

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.

blocks

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.

prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.

finds

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.

References