VulnerabilityPublished 23 Jan 2024Updated 30 May 2025

CVE-2023-42143: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Jan 2024
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

AI-suggested

Network Segmentation: Isolate Shelly TRV devices on dedicated VLANs or network segments with strict access controls to limit exposure to untrusted networks or users.
Firmware Update Verification: Until an official patch is released, implement network-level controls such as firewall rules or DNS filtering to prevent devices from reaching unauthorized update servers.
Monitor Network Traffic: Deploy anomaly detection to identify unusual DNS queries or connections from Shelly TRVs to unknown IP addresses, which may indicate redirection attempts.
Access Control Hardening: Restrict administrative access to the devices and ensure strong authentication mechanisms are in place to prevent unauthorized configuration changes.
Vendor Engagement: Engage with Shelly or the device vendor to obtain official patches or firmware updates that include integrity verification.
Incident Response Preparedness: Develop procedures to quickly isolate and remediate affected devices if compromise is suspected.
User Awareness: Educate facility managers and IT staff about the risks of unauthorized firmware updates and the importance of verifying update sources.

Description

Missing Integrity Check in Shelly TRV 20220811-152343/v2.1.8@5afc928c allows malicious users to create a backdoor by redirecting the device to an attacker-controlled machine which serves the manipulated firmware file. The device is updated with the manipulated firmware.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those deploying Shelly TRV devices in smart building environments, offices, or residential complexes. Compromised devices could serve as footholds for attackers to infiltrate internal networks, potentially leading to lateral movement and data exfiltration. The backdoor created by manipulated firmware could enable persistent access, undermining network integrity and confidentiality. Although the direct impact on availability is low, the presence of unauthorized firmware could disrupt normal device operation or cause privacy violations. Organizations relying on smart building automation and IoT devices without robust network segmentation or monitoring are particularly at risk. The vulnerability also raises compliance concerns under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is indirectly exposed through compromised devices. Given the increasing adoption of IoT in European smart cities and enterprises, this vulnerability could be exploited to target critical infrastructure or high-value commercial environments.

CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
Implementation
Ensure that the checksums present in messages are properly checked in accordance with the protocol specification before they are parsed and used.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Checksum Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

kth.se/cs/nse/research/software-systems-architecture-and-security/projects/ethical-hacking-1.1279219 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 16:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-354

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats