CVE-2023-0629
Docker Desktop 4.13.0 – 4.17.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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-2023-0629 is a high-severity Improper Protection of Alternate Path (CWE-424) vulnerability in Docker Docker Desktop. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 11th 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-2023-12663
Vulnerability Data
Docker Desktop before 4.17.0 allows an unprivileged user to bypass Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI) restrictions by setting the Docker host to docker.raw.sock, or npipe:////.pipe/docker_engine_linux on Windows, via the -H (--host) CLI flag or the DOCKER_HOST environment variable and launch containers…
more
without the additional hardening features provided by ECI. This would not affect already running containers, nor containers launched through the usual approach (without Docker's raw socket). The affected functionality is available for Docker Business customers only and assumes an environment where users are not granted local root or Administrator privileges. This issue has been fixed in Docker Desktop 4.17.0. Affected Docker Desktop versions: from 4.13.0 before 4.17.0.
- 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.
Documenting requirements and authorizing remote access ensures proper protection of alternate paths.
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.
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.
Access control policy directly requires protection of all entry points to restricted functionality.
Managing access rights must cover every alternate path that could bypass intended restrictions.
Privileged access rights must be enforced on every possible route to privileged functions.
Secure development lifecycle includes design reviews that should identify and close alternate paths.
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.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-424, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.