CVE-2023-5102
Sick Apu0200 Firmware ≤ 4.0.0.6
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-5102 is a medium-severity Insufficient Control Flow Management (CWE-691) vulnerability in Sick Apu0200 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-57442
Vulnerability Data
Insufficient Control Flow Management in RDT400 in SICK APU allows an unprivileged remote attacker to potentially enable hidden functionality via HTTP requests.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Design principles and implementation approaches enforce robust control-flow management to maintain function and enable recovery after disruption.
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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure requirements, checkpoints, secure coding guidelines, testing, developer training) that reach a minority slice of control-flow defects but leave most insufficient control-flow cases (e.g. unexpected modifications via unaddressed logic, state, or concurrency issues) unaddressed without further specific mechanisms.
A.8.26 identifies and specifies security requirements (including some that could address control flow) but does not itself remove, fix, or eliminate the code defect; per the verb definition and anchors, only secure coding or direct correction removes a first-party code weakness like CWE-691
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (least privilege, fail securely, default deny, distrust external input, defence in depth, security-oriented design reviews) that reach some but not most control-flow issues in CWE-691; many implementation-level flaws (e.g. unexpected state transitions, race conditions, or missing bounds on transitions) remain exploitable unless caught by later testing or hardening that the clause itself does not mandate.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid constructs that allow unintended control-flow changes such as missing breaks or unsafe jumps.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect control-flow weaknesses but does not itself implement preventive controls.
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-691, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.