CVE-2023-29195
Linuxfoundation Vitess ≤ 16.0.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2023-29195 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Vitess. Its CVSS base score is 4.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 41% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-1601
Vulnerability Data
Vitess is a database clustering system for horizontal scaling of MySQL through generalized sharding. Prior to version 16.0.2, users can either intentionally or inadvertently create a shard containing `/` characters from VTAdmin such that from that point on, anyone who…
more
tries to create a new shard from VTAdmin will receive an error. Attempting to view the keyspace(s) will also no longer work. Creating a shard using `vtctldclient` does not have the same problem because the CLI validates the input correctly. Version 16.0.2, corresponding to version 0.16.2 of the `go` module, contains a patch for this issue. Some workarounds are available. Always use `vtctldclient` to create shards, instead of using VTAdmin; disable creating shards from VTAdmin using RBAC; and/or delete the topology record for the offending shard using the client for your topology server.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
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.
Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.
Implements explicit check and handling for the exceptional condition of audit logging process failure.
Establishing and monitoring system metrics with correlation and response actions helps identify and address improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Provides a defined response to detected conditions by restricting operation, ensuring exceptional conditions are handled rather than ignored or mishandled.
Contingency training equips users with defined procedures to check and respond to exceptional conditions during disruptions, reducing exploitation of mishandled errors.
Testing verifies the system's ability to detect, handle, and recover from exceptional conditions as part of the plan, reducing exploitability of improper exception handling.
Regular updates keep contingency procedures aligned with system changes, providing structured handling for exceptional conditions that would otherwise allow unmitigated exploitation.
Policy defines checks and handling for exceptional conditions arising from security incidents.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
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.
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.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Reporting of unhandled errors or exceptional conditions surfaces latent failure paths so they can be corrected before exploitation.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20