CVE-2023-34312
Tencent Qq 9.7.1.28940 – 9.7.8.29039
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-2023-34312 is a high-severity Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference (CWE-763) vulnerability in Tencent Qq. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked at the 47th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
CVE-2023-34312 affects Tencent QQ up to version 9.7.8.29039 and TIM up to 3.4.7.22084. The flaw resides in QQProtect.exe and QQProtectEngine.dll, which accept unvalidated pointers over inter-process communication channels and thereby permit an arbitrary write-what-where primitive (CWE-763). The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 under the local-attack vector.
A local, authenticated attacker can send crafted IPC messages to the QQProtect components, overwriting arbitrary kernel or user-mode memory locations. Successful exploitation yields full control over the affected process, enabling privilege escalation, credential theft, or persistent code execution on the host.
Public references consist solely of a proof-of-concept repository demonstrating the elevation technique; no vendor advisory or patch information is supplied in the available sources. The EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0784 since disclosure, indicating no measurable increase in observed exploitation activity.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-38393
Vulnerability Data
In Tencent QQ through 9.7.8.29039 and TIM through 3.4.7.22084, QQProtect.exe and QQProtectEngine.dll do not validate pointers from inter-process communication, which leads to a write-what-where condition.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 prevent invalid pointer release errors 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.
A.8.25 mandates a secure-SDLC process (requirements, checkpoints, secure coding guidelines, testing, training) but does not itself stop an invalid pointer/reference from being released; the coding defect can still be written, reach production, and be exploitable.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as buffer overflows) be identified and specified during development; it does not itself enforce, implement or assure those requirements, so the invalid-pointer weakness can still arise and be exploited.
A.8.27 mandates establishing and applying secure engineering principles (e.g. least privilege, security by design, hardening) during architecture and development; it does not stop an invalid pointer release from being exploitable once the coding error exists in the product.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit mismatched or incorrect pointer-release calls.
Security testing can detect invalid pointer releases before release.