CVE-2023-32642
Intel Killer ≤ 3.1423.712
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-32642 is a medium-severity Insufficient Adherence to Expected Conventions (CWE-1076) vulnerability in Intel Killer. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-36885
Vulnerability Data
Insufficient adherence to expected conventions for some Intel(R) PROSet/Wireless and Intel(R) Killer(TM) Wi-Fi software before version 22.240 may allow an unauthenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via adjacent access.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires the developer to follow documented development processes, standards, and tools, directly enforcing adherence to conventions in code, design, and artifacts.
Requires developer testing and evaluation that can identify deviations from required coding, design, or documentation conventions.
Mandates use of an SDLC that incorporates security and privacy conventions into system acquisition, development, and management.
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.5.1 only requires the existence of an overarching policy and topic-specific policies (including one on secure development); it does not itself enforce conventions in architecture, code, design or artifacts, so the weakness can still arise and be exploited.
Defined roles can assign responsibility for convention compliance but do not ensure it occurs.
Directly requires compliance with rules and standards, which include coding and documentation conventions.
Documented procedures can specify conventions but do not guarantee they are followed.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing and developer training that reach a minority slice of convention-adherence failures (those caught by design reviews, code scans or secure-coding rules), but most convention violations arise from inconsistent application, undocumented expectations or non-security conventions outside its scope.
A.8.27 mandates establishing and applying security engineering principles (security by design, least privilege, default deny, fail securely, distrust external input, hardening, design review against attack patterns) that directly address and stop insufficient adherence to conventions from producing exploitable defects; the bounded remainder is non-technical conventions (e.g. purely stylistic documentation or naming) outside the clause's security-engineering focus.
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-1076, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.