Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-1326 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Canonical Ubuntu Linux. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 42% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability CVE-2023-1326 is a privilege escalation flaw affecting apport-cli versions 2.26.0 and earlier. It occurs under a specific configuration that permits unprivileged users to invoke the tool via sudo while using less as the pager and allowing terminal size manipulation, enabling behavior comparable to the earlier CVE-2023-26604 issue.
A local attacker who can execute apport-cli under sudo may leverage the pager to run arbitrary commands, resulting in elevated privileges with impacts across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Ubuntu addressed the issue through security notice USN-6018-1, and a corresponding fix was merged in the apport repository via commit e5f78cc89f1f5888b6a56b785dddcb0364c48ecb.
The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0549 with no material rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-23584
Vulnerability Data
A privilege escalation attack was found in apport-cli 2.26.0 and earlier which is similar to CVE-2023-26604. If a system is specially configured to allow unprivileged users to run sudo apport-cli, less is configured as the pager, and the terminal size…
more
can be set: a local attacker can escalate privilege. It is extremely unlikely that a system administrator would configure sudo to allow unprivileged users to perform this class of exploit.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
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.
Policy addresses roles, responsibilities, and privilege management to prevent improper privilege assignments.
Access supervision ensures privileges are assigned and managed without improper escalation or retention.
Assigning group/role memberships and access authorizations (privileges) while reviewing accounts addresses improper privilege management.
Enforces proper privilege management by requiring all decisions through the verified reference monitor.
By mandating division of duties across roles, the control enforces proper privilege management and prevents a single entity from controlling an entire sensitive process.
Implements core proper privilege management by restricting to only required rights.
Policy requires training on privilege management and least privilege, making it harder to exploit improper privilege management weaknesses.
Training covers proper privilege management practices, making incorrect privilege assignments less likely.
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.
A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
Logging every use of privileges and protecting those records makes it harder for an attacker who has obtained elevated rights to operate without leaving evidence.
A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including least privilege, default deny, fail securely, defence in depth, security architecture integration, hardening, and zero-trust verification of every request; these directly stop most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw remains, with a bounded remainder (e.g. certain legacy or safety-overridden controls).
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.