CVE-2023-50327
Ibm Powersc 1.3 … 2.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2023-50327 is a medium-severity Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side (CWE-650) vulnerability in Ibm Powersc. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 40th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-55132
Vulnerability Data
IBM PowerSC 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1 uses insecure HTTP methods which could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized file request modification. IBM X-Force ID: 275109.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.5.1V3.5.3V4.1.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 enforces authorizations for resource access without permitting unsafe assumptions about request methods to bypass checks.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
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 prevent flawed assumptions about HTTP method safety during design and coding.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover this server-side logic flaw through testing or scanning.
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 can detect and prevent vulnerabilities where GET requests cause unintended state changes.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Application security requirements can mandate proper HTTP method usage and state-changing operation restrictions.
Secure system architecture principles include proper HTTP method handling and RESTful design to prevent state changes via GET.
Secure coding practices directly address improper HTTP method usage and ensure state-changing operations use POST/PUT/DELETE.