VulnerabilityPublished 17 Apr 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-45209: Peplink Smart Reader · Improper Access Control

Affects Peplink Smart ReaderSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 71% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 17 Apr 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 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

1. Immediately restrict network access to the /cgi-bin/download_config.cgi endpoint by implementing firewall rules or access control lists (ACLs) to allow only trusted management hosts. 2. Deploy network segmentation to isolate Peplink Smart Reader devices from general user networks and the internet. 3. Monitor network traffic for unusual HTTP requests targeting the vulnerable endpoint, using intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) or SIEM solutions. 4. Engage with Peplink support or vendor channels to obtain patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability as they become available. 5. If patches are not yet available, consider disabling the web interface or the vulnerable functionality if operationally feasible. 6. Conduct regular audits of device configurations and access logs to detect unauthorized access attempts. 7. Educate security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid response to potential exploitation attempts. 8. Implement strong authentication and encryption on management interfaces to reduce exposure to unauthorized access.

Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the web interface /cgi-bin/download_config.cgi functionality of Peplink Smart Reader v1.2.0 (in QEMU). A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to a disclosure of sensitive information. An attacker can make an unauthenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2023-45209 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive configuration data from Peplink Smart Reader devices. This could lead to exposure of internal network configurations, credentials, or other sensitive information that attackers could leverage for lateral movement or further compromise. Sectors such as government, critical infrastructure, transportation, and large enterprises using these devices for physical or logical access control are at higher risk. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach could undermine trust in security controls and facilitate subsequent attacks. The ease of exploitation without authentication increases the risk of opportunistic scanning and exploitation by threat actors. However, the limited market penetration of this specific product and version may reduce the overall exposure. Organizations failing to restrict access to device management interfaces or lacking network segmentation could face elevated risk.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 18:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats