Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-43052

Ibm Control Center 6.2.1.0 … 6.3.1.0

Published
07 March 2025
Modified
19 June 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0035 28th percentile
Risk Priority 44 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2023-43052 is a medium-severity Improper Interaction Between Multiple Correctly-Behaving Entities (CWE-435) vulnerability in Ibm Control Center. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 28th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

IBM Control Center 6.2.1 through 6.3.1 is vulnerable to an external service interaction attack, caused by improper validation of user-supplied input. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to induce the application to perform server-side DNS lookups or HTTP requests…

more

to arbitrary domain names. By submitting suitable payloads, an attacker can cause the application server to attack other systems that it can interact with.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-35111Same product: Ibm Control Center
CVE-2024-35114Same product: Ibm Control Center
CVE-2024-35113Same product: Ibm Control Center
CVE-2024-35112Same product: Ibm Control Center
CVE-2023-35016Same vendor: Ibm
CVE-2024-25046Same vendor: Ibm
CVE-2024-31881Same vendor: Ibm
CVE-2025-33013Same vendor: Ibm
CVE-2025-36192Same vendor: Ibm
CVE-2023-25927Same vendor: Ibm

Affected Assets

ibm
control center
6.2.1.0, 6.3.1.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V3.2.1
  • V3.3.3
  • V10.5.5
  • V13.2.6

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Information flow enforcement structurally constrains how entities exchange data and thus can stop emergent incorrect behaviors at integration points.

Developer testing and evaluation can discover interaction defects that only appear when components are integrated.

Requiring an explicit security architecture and design forces analysis and mitigation of interaction failures between components before integration.

Partitioning the system into separate domains reduces the surface on which correct individual behaviors can combine into incorrect system-level behavior.

Preventing unauthorized or unintended information transfer through shared resources directly blocks one common class of improper inter-entity interaction.

Security engineering principles such as separation of domains and least privilege directly reduce the chance that individually correct components produce incorrect joint behavior.

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.

DE.AE-03 mostly match
prevents

Correlating logs and events from multiple independent entities directly surfaces interaction-induced misbehavior.

ID.IM-02 mostly match
prevents

Security tests and exercises that include third-party components explicitly exercise cross-entity interactions.

PR.PS-06 partial match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices encompass integration and interface testing that can prevent interaction errors.

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.

prevents

Secure architecture principles address component interfaces and composition risks.

finds

Security testing during integration and acceptance can reveal interaction-induced weaknesses.

prevents

Project-level integration planning can surface interaction issues between components.

prevents

Secure SDLC practices include integration and interface testing that can detect interaction flaws.

prevents

Explicit application security requirements can specify expected component interactions.

prevents

Change management can require impact analysis of component interactions before deployment.

References