Security Resilience

CVE-2023-50274

Command Injection in Hp Oneview ≤ 8.70

Published
23 January 2024
Modified
30 May 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0069 52th percentile
Risk Priority 59 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-2023-50274 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Hp Oneview. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, ranked in the top 48% 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

HPE OneView may allow command injection with local privilege escalation.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-28088Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-28091Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-30909Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-28089Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-50275Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-28087Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-28086Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-28090Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-30908Same product: Hp Oneview
CVE-2023-6573Same product: Hp Oneview

Affected Assets

hp
oneview
≤ 8.70

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.

Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.

Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.

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