Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.44% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-20230High confidence
Cisco Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) — Improper Access Control
Cisco · Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC)
Official source article: Cisco CISCO-SA-APIC-UAPA-F4TASHK ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.4MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Cisco Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
A vulnerability in the restricted security domain implementation of Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to read, modify, or delete non-tenant policies (for example, access policies) created by users associated with a different security domain on an affected system. This vulnerability is due to improper access control when restricted security domains are used to implement multi-tenancy for policies outside the tenant boundaries. An attacker with a valid user account associated with a restricted security domain could exploit this vulnerability. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to read, modify, or delete policies created by users associated with a different security domain. Exploitation is not possible for policies under tenants that an attacker has no authorization to access.
What
A vulnerability in the restricted security domain implementation of Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to read, modify, or delete non-tenant policies (for example, access policies) created by users associated with a different security domain on an affected system. This vulnerability is due to improper access control when restricted security domains are used to implement multi-tenancy for policies outside the tenant boundaries. An attacker with a valid user account associated with a restricted security domain could exploit this vulnerability. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to read, modify, or delete policies created by users associated with a different security domain. Exploitation is not possible for policies under tenants that an attacker has no authorization to access.
Why
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
A vulnerability in the restricted security domain implementation of Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to read, modify, or delete non-tenant policies (for example, access policies) created by users associated with a different security domain on an affected system. This vulnerability is due to improper access control when restricted security domains are used to implement multi-tenancy for policies outside the tenant boundaries. An attacker with a valid user account associated with a restricted security domain could exploit this vulnerability. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to read, modify, or delete policies created by users associated with a different security domain. Exploitation is not possible for policies under tenants that an attacker has no authorization to access.
Why
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Access Control → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-284 ↗
CWE-284: Improper Access Control. The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC): 5.2(6e), 5.2(6g), 5.2(7f), 5.2(7g), 6.0(1g), 6.0(1j), 6.0(2h), 6.0(2j)
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 23 Aug 2023 · Last source change 1 Oct 2024, 15:53 UTC · CWE-284 · Improper Access Control
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-24409
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.