Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-52464 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 18th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-57089
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: EDAC/thunderx: Fix possible out-of-bounds string access Enabling -Wstringop-overflow globally exposes a warning for a common bug in the usage of strncat(): drivers/edac/thunderx_edac.c: In function 'thunderx_ocx_com_threaded_isr': drivers/edac/thunderx_edac.c:1136:17: error: 'strncat' specified bound…
more
1024 equals destination size [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] 1136 | strncat(msg, other, OCX_MESSAGE_SIZE); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... 1145 | strncat(msg, other, OCX_MESSAGE_SIZE); ... 1150 | strncat(msg, other, OCX_MESSAGE_SIZE); ... Apparently the author of this driver expected strncat() to behave the way that strlcat() does, which uses the size of the destination buffer as its third argument rather than the length of the source buffer. The result is that there is no check on the size of the allocated buffer. Change it to strlcat(). [ bp: Trim compiler output, fixup commit message. ]
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Ongoing control assessments and code testing (static/dynamic analysis, fuzzing) surface memory buffer restriction failures, which are then remediated before release.
Managed runtimes used by platform-independent applications (e.g., JVM, CLR) enforce memory safety, preventing most buffer overflows that require direct memory manipulation.
Memory protections (e.g., W^X, ASLR) make exploitation of buffer-boundary violations far harder to turn into code execution.
Detects exploitation attempts that produce memory corruption, crashes, or anomalous behavior.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.