Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

QTS, QuTS hero, QuTScloud

Not in CISA KEVMetasploit moduleCVE-2023-47218CWE-77CWE-78

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Partly blocked
CVSS
5.8
EPSS
89.9% Top 0.2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2024-02-13
An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow users to execute commands via a network. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the… More

An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow users to execute commands via a network. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions: QTS 5.1.5.2645 build 20240116 and later QuTS hero h5.1.5.2647 build 20240118 and later QuTScloud c5.1.5.2651 and later

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2023-47218: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Medium · 5.8 / 10

Exploitable from an adjacent network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Same network onlyNo login neededNo user actionHard to pull offSpreads beyond the app
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker must be on the same local network, Wi-Fi or VPN segment.
    Adjacent network
  • Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.
    High
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.
    Low
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
    Low
  • Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.
    Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

2 found
1 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2024-02-13
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2024-02-13
    Metasploit module published
    QNAP QTS and QuTS Hero Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in quick.cgi
  3. 2026-09-16
    F5 ships a rule
    QNAP Command Injection
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  5. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-09-16, 946 days after the CVE was published.

2026-09-16New rule200103688Source
Added: signature 200103688 "QNAP Command Injection" (Command Execution, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2023-47218.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.