CVE-2023-52595
Linux Kernel ≤ 5.4.269
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-52595 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 7th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-57219
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: rt2x00: restart beacon queue when hardware reset When a hardware reset is triggered, all registers are reset, so all queues are forced to stop in hardware interface. However, mac80211…
more
will not automatically stop the queue. If we don't manually stop the beacon queue, the queue will be deadlocked and unable to start again. This patch fixes the issue where Apple devices cannot connect to the AP after calling ieee80211_restart_hw().
- 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 include code reviews, static analysis, and concurrency standards that prevent improper locking.
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 can detect race conditions and locking errors before release.
Secure development lifecycle includes concurrency and locking requirements that reduce improper locking defects.
Application security requirements can mandate proper lock acquisition/release patterns.
Secure architecture principles address thread-safety and resource synchronization.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit missing or incorrect lock usage.
Change management may catch locking issues introduced by modifications but does not prevent the weakness itself.