Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-35057

Memory Safety in Tonybybell Gtkwave 3.3.115

Public PoCMemory Safety
Published
08 January 2024
Modified
04 November 2025
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0039 32th percentile
Risk Priority 57 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2023-35057 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Tonybybell Gtkwave. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 32th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

An integer overflow vulnerability exists in the LXT2 lxt2_rd_trace value elements allocation functionality of GTKWave 3.3.115. A specially crafted .lxt2 file can lead to memory corruption. A victim would need to open a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

CWE(s)
CWE-190

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
attack.mitre.org →
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-39273Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-38618Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-38623Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-38650Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-39275Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-38653Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-35989Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-38620Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-36915Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave
CVE-2023-35992Same product: Tonybybell Gtkwave

Affected Assets

tonybybell
gtkwave
3.3.115

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V5.2.6

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.

SI-10 Information Input Validation partial match

Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.

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.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
degrades

Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
degrades

Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.

References