Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2023-52435 is a medium-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 13th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-57060
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: prevent mss overflow in skb_segment() Once again syzbot is able to crash the kernel in skb_segment() [1] GSO_BY_FRAGS is a forbidden value, but unfortunately the following computation in skb_segment()…
more
can reach it quite easily : mss = mss * partial_segs; 65535 = 3 * 5 * 17 * 257, so many initial values of mss can lead to a bad final result. Make sure to limit segmentation so that the new mss value is smaller than GSO_BY_FRAGS. [1] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000e: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000070-0x0000000000000077] CPU: 1 PID: 5079 Comm: syz-executor993 Not tainted 6.7.0-rc4-syzkaller-00141-g1ae4cd3cbdd0 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 11/10/2023 RIP: 0010:skb_segment+0x181d/0x3f30 net/core/skbuff.c:4551 Code: 83 e3 02 e9 fb ed ff ff e8 90 68 1c f9 48 8b 84 24 f8 00 00 00 48 8d 78 70 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 <0f> b6 04 02 84 c0 74 08 3c 03 0f 8e 8a 21 00 00 48 8b 84 24 f8 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc900043473d0 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: 0000000000010046 RCX: ffffffff886b1597 RDX: 000000000000000e RSI: ffffffff886b2520 RDI: 0000000000000070 RBP: ffffc90004347578 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 000000000000ffff R10: 000000000000ffff R11: 0000000000000002 R12: ffff888063202ac0 R13: 0000000000010000 R14: 000000000000ffff R15: 0000000000000046 FS: 0000555556e7e380(0000) GS:ffff8880b9900000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000000020010000 CR3: 0000000027ee2000 CR4: 00000000003506f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> udp6_ufo_fragment+0xa0e/0xd00 net/ipv6/udp_offload.c:109 ipv6_gso_segment+0x534/0x17e0 net/ipv6/ip6_offload.c:120 skb_mac_gso_segment+0x290/0x610 net/core/gso.c:53 __skb_gso_segment+0x339/0x710 net/core/gso.c:124 skb_gso_segment include/net/gso.h:83 [inline] validate_xmit_skb+0x36c/0xeb0 net/core/dev.c:3626 __dev_queue_xmit+0x6f3/0x3d60 net/core/dev.c:4338 dev_queue_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:3134 [inline] packet_xmit+0x257/0x380 net/packet/af_packet.c:276 packet_snd net/packet/af_packet.c:3087 [inline] packet_sendmsg+0x24c6/0x5220 net/packet/af_packet.c:3119 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg+0xd5/0x180 net/socket.c:745 __sys_sendto+0x255/0x340 net/socket.c:2190 __do_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2202 [inline] __se_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2198 [inline] __x64_sys_sendto+0xe0/0x1b0 net/socket.c:2198 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x40/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b RIP: 0033:0x7f8692032aa9 Code: 28 00 00 00 75 05 48 83 c4 28 c3 e8 d1 19 00 00 90 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 b8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007fff8d685418 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002c RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f8692032aa9 RDX: 0000000000010048 RSI: 00000000200000c0 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 00000000000f4240 R08: 0000000020000540 R09: 0000000000000014 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fff8d685480 R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 00007fff8d685480 R15: 0000000000000003 </TASK> Modules linked in: ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- RIP: 0010:skb_segment+0x181d/0x3f30 net/core/skbuff.c:4551 Code: 83 e3 02 e9 fb ed ff ff e8 90 68 1c f9 48 8b 84 24 f8 00 00 00 48 8d 78 70 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 <0f> b6 04 02 84 c0 74 08 3c 03 0f 8e 8a 21 00 00 48 8b 84 24 f8 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc900043473d0 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: 0000000000010046 RCX: ffffffff886b1597 RDX: 000000000000000e RSI: ffffffff886b2520 RDI: 0000000000000070 RBP: ffffc90004347578 R0 ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 secure SDLC practices (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, testing including code scans and penetration tests, developer training) that reach buffer management and can stop many buffer overruns from reaching production, but leaves a bounded remainder (e.g. flaws in non-software components, incomplete enforcement of guidelines, or post-deployment changes)
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. least privilege, fail securely, distrust external input, hardening) plus design reviews that can catch and stop buffer-boundary errors before they reach code, but this is only one minority slice of CWE-119's broad surface (language-specific flaws, unsafe library use, compiler/runtime mitigations, and post-deployment instances remain outside its direct scope).
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
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-119, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-823.