Raw vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-42115 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Exim Exim. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 5% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
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-2023-42115 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the SMTP service of Exim mail transfer agent installations. The flaw resides in the handling of AUTH commands on the default TCP port 25 listener and results from missing validation of attacker-supplied data, which permits a write past the end of an allocated buffer. It was originally reported as ZDI-CAN-17434 and carries a CVSS v3 score of 9.8.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can send specially crafted SMTP traffic to trigger the flaw and achieve arbitrary code execution in the context of the Exim service account. No user interaction or prior authentication is required for successful exploitation.
The referenced Zero Day Initiative advisory ZDI-23-1469 documents the issue but does not detail specific patch versions or mitigation steps in the supplied information. The associated EPSS score has reached a peak of 0.7290 with a current value of 0.6581.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-46574
Vulnerability Data
Exim AUTH Out-Of-Bounds Write Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Exim. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the smtp service, which listens…
more
on TCP port 25 by default. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in a write past the end of a buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. . Was ZDI-CAN-17434.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.