CVE-2023-52781
Linux Kernel 3.16.79 – 3.17
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-2023-52781 is a medium-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 14th 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-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-59498
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: usb: config: fix iteration issue in 'usb_get_bos_descriptor()' The BOS descriptor defines a root descriptor and is the base descriptor for accessing a family of related descriptors. Function 'usb_get_bos_descriptor()' encounters an…
more
iteration issue when skipping the 'USB_DT_DEVICE_CAPABILITY' descriptor type. This results in the same descriptor being read repeatedly. To address this issue, a 'goto' statement is introduced to ensure that the pointer and the amount read is updated correctly. This ensures that the function iterates to the next descriptor instead of reading the same descriptor repeatedly.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 an SDLC process that includes security requirements, checkpoints, secure coding guidelines, testing and developer training, which reaches a slice of control-flow defects but leaves most implementation bugs untouched without perfect enforcement at every checkpoint.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.
A.8.32 mandates a formal process for planning, authorizing, testing and documenting changes but does not itself inspect, correct or block the incorrect control-flow logic that CWE-670 describes; the defect can still be introduced and exploited if the developer writes it and the process accepts it.
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-670, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.