Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-6640

Silabs Z-Wave Pc-Based Controller ≤ 5.54

Published
21 February 2024
Modified
12 February 2025
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0027 19th percentile
Risk Priority 49 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2023-6640 is a medium-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability in Silabs Z-Wave Pc-Based Controller. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 19th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Malformed S2 Nonce Get Command Class packets can be sent to crash PC Controller v5.54.0 and earlier.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-6533Same product: Silabs Z-Wave Pc-Based Controller
CVE-2023-5310Same vendor: Silabs
CVE-2026-47145Same vendor: Silabs
CVE-2026-47146Same vendor: Silabs
CVE-2023-51394Same vendor: Silabs
CVE-2025-2838Same vendor: Silabs
CVE-2023-22477Shared CWE-248
CVE-2026-14181Shared CWE-248
CVE-2025-20176Shared CWE-248
CVE-2024-34363Shared CWE-248

Affected Assets

silabs
z-wave pc-based controller
≤ 5.54

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.

Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.

Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.

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 practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.

prevents

Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.

prevents

Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.

References