VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2023Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-24583: Milesight UR32L · Command Injection

Affects Milesight UR32LSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 3.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 87% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jul 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Milesight UR32L	Affected =32.3.0.5	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict UDP traffic to the Milesight UR32L devices at network perimeter firewalls and internal segmentation points, allowing only trusted sources to communicate with the device.
Implement strict network segmentation to isolate UR32L devices from sensitive internal networks, limiting potential lateral movement.
Monitor network traffic for unusual UDP packets targeting the device, employing intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with custom signatures if possible.
Engage with Milesight support or vendor channels to obtain information on patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability and plan prompt deployment once available.
Conduct a thorough inventory of all Milesight UR32L devices in the environment to identify and prioritize remediation efforts.
Apply principle of least privilege to device management interfaces and disable any unnecessary services or features that could be exploited.
Consider deploying network anomaly detection tools to identify suspicious command injection attempts.
Educate network and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid response to any indicators of compromise.
If feasible, temporarily replace or isolate vulnerable devices until a patch is applied to reduce exposure.

Description

Two OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the urvpn_client cmd_name_action functionality of Milesight UR32L v32.3.0.5. A specially crafted network request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a network request to trigger these vulnerabilities.This OS command injection is triggered through a UDP packet.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-24583 can be severe. The Milesight UR32L is often deployed in industrial, telecom, and enterprise network environments, where it may serve as a VPN gateway or network router. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized command execution, resulting in data breaches, disruption of network services, or complete device takeover. This compromises confidentiality by exposing sensitive network configurations and data, integrity by allowing unauthorized changes to system settings or software, and availability by potentially causing device crashes or denial of service. Given the device's role in network infrastructure, successful exploitation could facilitate further attacks within the internal network, including lateral movement to critical systems. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the attack vector increases the risk, especially for organizations with exposed UDP ports or insufficient network segmentation. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers may develop exploits rapidly once the vulnerability is public. European critical infrastructure sectors, including energy, manufacturing, and telecommunications, could face operational disruptions and regulatory consequences if affected devices are compromised.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 21:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats