Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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-2023-22809 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Sudo Project Sudo. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 1.0% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
In Sudo versions 1.8.0 through 1.9.12p1, the sudoedit feature fails to properly sanitize additional arguments supplied via the SUDO_EDITOR, VISUAL, or EDITOR environment variables. A user-specified editor value containing a "--" separator can bypass an existing protection and cause arbitrary file paths to be appended to the list of files sudoedit will process, resulting in unintended file operations under elevated privileges.
A local attacker who is already permitted to run sudoedit can set one of the affected environment variables to include a crafted editor command. This grants the ability to modify or create arbitrary files as root, enabling straightforward privilege escalation on the affected system.
Public exploit code and technical analyses have been published through channels such as Packet Storm and OpenWall, confirming working proof-of-concept attacks against vulnerable installations. The associated EPSS score rose from lower values after disclosure to a peak of 0.5510 before receding to the current 0.4437, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest. Upgrading to Sudo 1.9.12p2 or later eliminates the flaw.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-26921
Vulnerability Data
In Sudo before 1.9.12p2, the sudoedit (aka -e) feature mishandles extra arguments passed in the user-provided environment variables (SUDO_EDITOR, VISUAL, and EDITOR), allowing a local attacker to append arbitrary entries to the list of files to process. This can lead…
more
to privilege escalation. Affected versions are 1.8.0 through 1.9.12.p1. The problem exists because a user-specified editor may contain a "--" argument that defeats a protection mechanism, e.g., an EDITOR='vim -- /path/to/extra/file' value.
- 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.