Security Resilience

CVE-2023-50694

Dom96 Httpbeast ≤ 0.4.1

Public PoC
Published
19 January 2024
Modified
17 June 2025
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 0.010 63th percentile
Risk Priority 75 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-2023-50694 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Dom96 Httpbeast. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, ranked in the top 37% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

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

An issue in dom96 HTTPbeast v.0.4.1 and before allows a remote attacker to send a malicious crafted request due to insufficient parsing in the parser.nim component.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-13808Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-14083Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-26587Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-34983Shared CWE-20
CVE-2024-55952Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-13025Shared CWE-20
CVE-2022-51015Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-20093Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-41746Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-28098Shared CWE-20

Affected Assets

dom96
httpbeast
≤ 0.4.1

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

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 security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

blocks

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

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-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References