Security Resilience

CVE-2023-1732

Cloudflare Circl ≤ 1.3.3

Published
10 May 2023
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0039 31th percentile
Risk Priority 43 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2023-1732 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Cloudflare Circl. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 31th 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

Vulnerability Data

When sampling randomness for a shared secret, the implementation of Kyber and FrodoKEM, did not check whether crypto/rand.Read() returns an error. In rare deployment cases (error thrown by the Read() function), this could lead to a predictable shared secret. The…

more

tkn20 and blindrsa components did not check whether enough randomness was returned from the user provided randomness source. Typically the user provides crypto/rand.Reader, which in the vast majority of cases will always return the right number random bytes. In the cases where it does not, or the user provides a source that does not, the blinding for blindrsa is weak and integrity of the plaintext is not ensured in tkn20.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-1229Same product: Cloudflare Circl
CVE-2023-4241Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2026-0933Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2023-6992Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2023-7079Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2024-0212Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2023-2754Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2023-0238Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2023-2512Same vendor: Cloudflare
CVE-2025-4820Same vendor: Cloudflare

Affected Assets

cloudflare
circl
≤ 1.3.3

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.

addresses: CWE-755

Provides defined handling (alert and additional actions) for the exceptional condition of audit logging failure.

addresses: CWE-755

Supplies a concrete handling action (safe mode) for exceptional conditions, mitigating risks from improper or absent handling that could allow continued attacks.

addresses: CWE-755

By preparing users for contingency scenarios, the control promotes proper handling of exceptional conditions instead of default or unsafe behaviors.

addresses: CWE-755

An updated contingency plan defines current actions for exceptional conditions, reducing the window for attackers to exploit improper handling leading to system failure.

addresses: CWE-755

Procedures ensure proper handling of exceptional conditions to support effective incident response.

addresses: CWE-755

Incident response testing confirms proper handling of exceptional conditions to limit exploit impact.

addresses: CWE-755

Gives users guidance on incident handling, reducing improper handling of exceptional conditions that could stem from exploited weaknesses.

addresses: CWE-20

Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

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.

degrades

Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.

finds

Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

blocks

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

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-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-755, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-274, CWE-280, CWE-333.

References