CVE-2023-53024

HIGHNVD 7.17.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.1 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2025-03-27. NVD baseline CVSS 7.1; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
7.1
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: 0%CVSS: 7.1Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Fix pointer-leak due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation

To mitigate Spectre v4, 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation") inserts lfence instructions after 1) initializing a stack slot and 2) spilling a pointer to the stack.

However, this does not cover cases where a stack slot is first initialized with a pointer (subject to sanitization) but then overwritten with a scalar (not subject to sanitization because the slot was already initialized). In this case, the second write may be subject to speculative store bypass (SSB) creating a speculative pointer-as-scalar type confusion. This allows the program to subsequently leak the numerical pointer value using, for example, a branch-based cache side channel.

To fix this, also sanitize scalars if they write a stack slot that previously contained a pointer. Assuming that pointer-spills are only generated by LLVM on register-pressure, the performance impact on most real-world BPF programs should be small.

The following unprivileged BPF bytecode drafts a minimal exploit and the mitigation:

[...] // r6 = 0 or 1 (skalar, unknown user input) // r7 = accessible ptr for side channel // r10 = frame pointer (fp), to be leaked // r9 = r10 # fp alias to encourage ssb *(u64 *)(r9 - 8) = r10 // fp[-8] = ptr, to be leaked // lfence added here because of pointer spill to stack. // // Ommitted: Dummy bpf_ringbuf_output() here to train alias predictor // for no r9-r10 dependency. // *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r6 // fp[-8] = scalar, overwrites ptr // 2039f26f3aca: no lfence added because stack slot was not STACK_INVALID, // store may be subject to SSB // // fix: also add an lfence when the slot contained a ptr // r8 = *(u64 *)(r9 - 8) // r8 = architecturally a scalar, speculatively a ptr // // leak ptr using branch-based cache side channel: r8 &= 1 // choose bit to leak if r8 == 0 goto SLOW // no mispredict // architecturally dead code if input r6 is 0, // only executes speculatively iff ptr bit is 1 r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 + 0) # encode bit in cache (0: slow, 1: fast) SLOW: [...]

After running this, the program can time the access to *(r7 + 0) to determine whether the chosen pointer bit was 0 or 1. Repeat this 64 times to recover the whole address on amd64.

In summary, sanitization can only be skipped if one scalar is overwritten with another scalar. Scalar-confusion due to speculative store bypass can not lead to invalid accesses because the pointer bounds deducted during verification are enforced using branchless logic. See 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") for details.

Do not make the mitigation depend on !env->allow_{uninit_stack,ptr_leaks} because speculative leaks are likely unexpected if these were enabled. For example, leaking the address to a protected log file may be acceptable while disabling the mitigation might unintentionally leak the address into the cached-state of a map that is accessible to unprivileged processes.

CVSS v3
7.1
EG Score
7.1(medium)
EG Risk
37(Track)
EG Risk 37/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity71% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS
8.8%
KEV
Not listed

Published

March 27, 2025

Last Modified

January 22, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2023-53024(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFixed in / PatchReleasedSource
redhatkernel-0:5.14.0-362.8.1.el9_32023-11-07redhat

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 46× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-07-23 02:29 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-07-22 23:16 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-07-22 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-22 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-21 15:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-20 17:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-19 14:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-19 14:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-19 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-18 10:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-16 17:01 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-15 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-15 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-13 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-13 06:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-12 05:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-12 05:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-11 08:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-09 19:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-08 15:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-07 13:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-07 13:44 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 66 more
  1. 2026-07-07 06:21 UTCOSV refresh
  2. 2026-07-06 16:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-06 16:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-06 02:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-06 02:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-05 02:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-04 06:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-01 15:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-06-30 23:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-06-29 14:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-06-28 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-06-28 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-06-28 04:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-27 03:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-06-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-23 21:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-22 14:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-22 14:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-21 14:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-21 01:58 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-06-19 19:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-18 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-18 17:35 UTCOSV refresh
  32. 2026-06-17 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-16 17:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-15 17:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-06-14 23:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-13 22:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-12 23:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-11 13:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-10 22:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-10 13:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-08 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-08 14:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-07 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-06-07 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-05 22:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-06-05 06:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-04 13:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-06-04 13:11 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-06-02 20:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-06-02 20:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  57. 2026-06-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-05-31 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-05-31 00:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-05-31 00:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-05-30 08:41 UTCEG score recompute
  63. 2026-05-30 08:41 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-05-30 08:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  65. 2026-05-29 17:50 UTCOSV refresh
  66. 2026-05-29 13:43 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2023-53024?
CVE-2023-53024 is a high vulnerability published on March 27, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix pointer-leak due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation To mitigate Spectre v4, 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation") inserts lfence instructions after 1)…
When was CVE-2023-53024 disclosed?
CVE-2023-53024 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on March 27, 2025, with the most recent update on January 22, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2023-53024 actively exploited?
CVE-2023-53024 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 8.8% percentile likelihood of exploitation in the next 30 days — higher percentiles indicate greater predicted risk.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-53024?
CVE-2023-53024 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.1 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2023-53024?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2023-53024, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2023-53024

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-53024?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.