CVE-2023-0627
Docker Desktop 4.11.0 – 4.12.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-0627 is a medium-severity Trust Boundary Violation (CWE-501) vulnerability in Docker Docker Desktop. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 18th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-12661
Vulnerability Data
Docker Desktop 4.11.x allows --no-windows-containers flag bypass via IPC response spoofing which may lead to Local Privilege Escalation (LPE).This issue affects Docker Desktop: 4.11.X.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Establishes and maintains trust boundaries with external organizations before allowing their systems to interact with organization resources.
Prevents information from crossing trust boundaries without explicit approved authorizations.
Defining interfaces, controls, and trust responsibilities in agreements helps prevent violations of trust boundaries during data exchanges.
Authorizing and reviewing connections helps maintain proper trust boundaries between internal components.
Controlling media movement outside controlled areas maintains separation between internal and external trust boundaries.
Review of inter-system matching programs identifies and corrects trust-boundary violations before data crosses organizational or policy domains.
Defines explicit trust boundaries for PII use via documented purposes and prevents processing outside those boundaries.
Explicitly binding attributes to information crossing trust boundaries prevents loss of security context that leads to trust-boundary violations.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Documented data-flow representations make trust boundaries explicit and help surface mixing of trusted/untrusted data.
Logical segmentation and access controls enforce separation between trust domains, reducing the chance of co-mingled data structures.
Secure-development practices (coding standards, reviews, validation) directly prevent mixing trusted and untrusted data inside the same structures.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development lifecycle mandates separation of trusted and untrusted data flows, directly preventing mixing in the same structure.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including trust, segregation, input controls, etc.) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or configure any mechanism that stops a trust boundary violation from being exploited.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. distrust external input, least privilege, zero-trust verification, fail-securely) and design reviews that reach many but not all trust-boundary violations; a bounded remainder (e.g. unsafe mixing inside trusted code or components) can still be present and exploitable.
Secure coding standards can enforce input validation and data tagging, but do not guarantee architectural separation.