CVE-2023-48709
Combodo Itop ≤ 2.7.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-48709 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Combodo Itop. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 42% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-15 (Information Output Filtering) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-52746
Vulnerability Data
iTop is an IT service management platform. When exporting data from backoffice or portal in CSV or Excel files, users' inputs may include malicious formulas that may be imported into Excel. As Excel 2016 does **not** prevent Remote Code Execution…
more
by default, uninformed users may become victims. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.7.9, 3.0.4, 3.1.1, and 3.2.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.10V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Output filtering/validation directly stops unneutralized formula elements from being written into CSV files.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.