VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jun 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-4727: Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 11 Jun 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. Apply official patches or updates from dogtag-pki or pki-core maintainers as soon as they become available to address the LDAP injection flaw. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all query parameters, especially sessionID, to prevent LDAP injection attacks. 3. Restrict LDAP query permissions and enforce least privilege principles on the LDAP directory to limit exposure of session data. 4. Monitor LDAP server logs and PKI service logs for unusual session queries or authentication attempts involving wildcard or malformed sessionIDs. 5. Employ network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of PKI services to trusted networks and users only. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on LDAP injection and authentication mechanisms. 7. Educate administrators and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid detection and response. 8. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or LDAP query filters that can detect and block injection attempts targeting sessionID parameters.

Description

A flaw was found in dogtag-pki and pki-core. The token authentication scheme can be bypassed with a LDAP injection. By passing the query string parameter sessionID=*, an attacker can authenticate with an existing session saved in the LDAP directory server, which may lead to escalation of privilege.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-4727 is substantial due to the critical nature of PKI systems in securing digital identities, communications, and transactions. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized issuance or revocation of certificates, undermining trust in secure communications and potentially enabling man-in-the-middle attacks, data breaches, or fraudulent activities. Confidentiality is compromised as attackers gain access to sensitive authentication tokens and session data. Integrity is at risk because attackers can manipulate PKI operations, and availability may be affected if attackers disrupt certificate services. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and telecommunications, which heavily depend on PKI for secure operations, face elevated risks. Additionally, compliance with EU regulations like GDPR and NIS Directive could be jeopardized if this vulnerability leads to data breaches or service disruptions. The network-based attack vector means that internal and external facing PKI services must be secured to prevent exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…