Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-5102

Sick Apu0200 Firmware ≤ 4.0.0.6

Published
09 October 2023
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0057 44th percentile
Risk Priority 45 floored blend · peak EPSS

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, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Hijack Execution Flow (T1574); ranked at the 44th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

EU & UK References

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)
CWE-691NVD-CWE-Other

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1574 Hijack Execution Flow Stealth
Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the way operating systems run programs.
attack.mitre.org →
T1055 Process Injection Stealth
Adversaries may inject code into processes in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1055.003 Thread Execution Hijacking Stealth
Adversaries may inject malicious code into hijacked processes in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1055.004 Asynchronous Procedure Call Stealth
Adversaries may inject malicious code into processes via the asynchronous procedure call (APC) queue in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1574.004 Dylib Hijacking Stealth
Adversaries may execute their own payloads by placing a malicious dynamic library (dylib) with an expected name in a path a victim application searches at runtime.
attack.mitre.org →
T1055.005 Thread Local Storage Stealth
Adversaries may inject malicious code into processes via thread local storage (TLS) callbacks in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-43697Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-43700Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-43699Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-5103Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-5100Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-5101Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-43698Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2023-43696Same product: Sick Apu0200
CVE-2025-35963Shared CWE-691
CVE-2025-22893Shared CWE-691

Affected Assets

sick
apu0200 firmware
≤ 4.0.0.6

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

—

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.

SA-24 Design For Cyber Resiliency
addresses: CWE-691

Design principles and implementation approaches enforce robust control-flow management to maintain function and enable recovery after disruption.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC activities such as static analysis, code review, and testing directly prevent control-flow weaknesses while also addressing many other coding defects.

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.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect control-flow weaknesses but does not itself implement preventive controls.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates structured control-flow design and review that directly reduces unexpected flow manipulation.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles require explicit control-flow integrity mechanisms and error-handling paths.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid constructs that allow unintended control-flow changes such as missing breaks or unsafe jumps.

A.8.32 Change management partial match
prevents

Change management reduces introduction of control-flow defects through controlled updates but does not address the weakness directly.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

Windows 10 (1 rule)
  • V-220726 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-691
Windows 11 (1 rule)
  • V-253283 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-691

References