CVE-2023-51323VulnerabilityPublished 20 Feb 2025Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-51323: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% 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:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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 20 Feb 2025
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 2026-10-25.

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

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement strict rate limiting on the 'Forgot Password' feature to restrict the number of password reset requests that can be made per user or IP address within a given timeframe. Adding CAPTCHA or other human verification mechanisms can help prevent automated abuse. Email throttling and monitoring for unusual spikes in password reset requests should be established to detect and respond to potential attacks quickly. If possible, temporarily disabling the password reset feature until a vendor patch is available can be considered, especially in high-risk environments. Organizations should also review and harden their email infrastructure to handle potential flooding and ensure spam filters are properly configured to avoid blocking legitimate emails. Regularly updating the booking system and monitoring vendor communications for patches or advisories is critical. Finally, educating users about phishing risks related to password reset emails can reduce the impact of any social engineering attempts.

Description

A lack of rate limiting in the 'Forgot Password' feature of PHPJabbers Shared Asset Booking System v1.0 allows attackers to send an excessive amount of email for a legitimate user, leading to a possible Denial of Service (DoS) via a large amount of generated e-mail messages.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the availability of email services and user account recovery processes. An attacker could disrupt normal operations by flooding the email system with password reset messages, potentially causing legitimate emails to be delayed or blocked. This could impact customer trust and operational continuity, especially for organizations relying on PHPJabbers Shared Asset Booking System for managing shared resources or bookings. While the direct compromise of sensitive data is unlikely, the disruption of service can lead to indirect impacts such as increased support costs, reputational damage, and potential compliance issues if service levels are not maintained. Organizations with limited email infrastructure capacity or those operating in regulated sectors with strict availability requirements may experience more severe consequences. Additionally, if attackers leverage this vulnerability as part of a broader attack campaign, it could serve as a distraction or precursor to more damaging exploits.

CWE-290Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Misrepresentation (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (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, 19:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-290

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats