CVE-2023-53192
Linux Kernel 5.8 – 5.10.190
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-53192 is a critical-severity Improper Validation of Array Index (CWE-129) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 28th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-59784
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vxlan: Fix nexthop hash size The nexthop code expects a 31 bit hash, such as what is returned by fib_multipath_hash() and rt6_multipath_hash(). Passing the 32 bit hash returned by skb_get_hash()…
more
can lead to problems related to the fact that 'int hash' is a negative number when the MSB is set. In the case of hash threshold nexthop groups, nexthop_select_path_hthr() will disproportionately select the first nexthop group entry. In the case of resilient nexthop groups, nexthop_select_path_res() may do an out of bounds access in nh_buckets[], for example: hash = -912054133 num_nh_buckets = 2 bucket_index = 65535 which leads to the following panic: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc900025910c8 PGD 100000067 P4D 100000067 PUD 10026b067 PMD 0 Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI CPU: 4 PID: 856 Comm: kworker/4:3 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc2+ #34 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: ipv6_addrconf addrconf_dad_work RIP: 0010:nexthop_select_path+0x197/0xbf0 Code: c1 e4 05 be 08 00 00 00 4c 8b 35 a4 14 7e 01 4e 8d 6c 25 00 4a 8d 7c 25 08 48 01 dd e8 c2 25 15 ff 49 8d 7d 08 e8 39 13 15 ff <4d> 89 75 08 48 89 ef e8 7d 12 15 ff 48 8b 5d 00 e8 14 55 2f 00 85 RSP: 0018:ffff88810c36f260 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 00000000002000c0 RCX: ffffffffaf02dd77 RDX: dffffc0000000000 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: ffffc900025910c8 RBP: ffffc900025910c0 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: fffff520004b2219 R10: ffffc900025910cf R11: 31392d2068736168 R12: 00000000002000c0 R13: ffffc900025910c0 R14: 00000000fffef608 R15: ffff88811840e900 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8881f7000000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: ffffc900025910c8 CR3: 0000000129d00000 CR4: 0000000000750ee0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __die+0x23/0x70 ? page_fault_oops+0x1ee/0x5c0 ? __pfx_is_prefetch.constprop.0+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_page_fault_oops+0x10/0x10 ? search_bpf_extables+0xfe/0x1c0 ? fixup_exception+0x3b/0x470 ? exc_page_fault+0xf6/0x110 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 ? nexthop_select_path+0x197/0xbf0 ? nexthop_select_path+0x197/0xbf0 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe7/0x140 vxlan_xmit+0x5b2/0x2340 ? __lock_acquire+0x92b/0x3370 ? __pfx_vxlan_xmit+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_register_lock_class+0x10/0x10 ? skb_network_protocol+0xce/0x2d0 ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0xca/0x350 ? __pfx_vxlan_xmit+0x10/0x10 dev_hard_start_xmit+0xca/0x350 __dev_queue_xmit+0x513/0x1e20 ? __pfx___dev_queue_xmit+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90 ? skb_push+0x4c/0x80 ? eth_header+0x81/0xe0 ? __pfx_eth_header+0x10/0x10 ? neigh_resolve_output+0x215/0x310 ? ip6_finish_output2+0x2ba/0xc90 ip6_finish_output2+0x2ba/0xc90 ? lock_release+0x236/0x3e0 ? ip6_mtu+0xbb/0x240 ? __pfx_ip6_finish_output2+0x10/0x10 ? find_held_lock+0x83/0xa0 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe7/0x140 ip6_finish_output+0x1ee/0x780 ip6_output+0x138/0x460 ? __pfx_ip6_output+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_ip6_finish_output+0x10/0x10 NF_HOOK.constprop.0+0xc0/0x420 ? __pfx_NF_HOOK.constprop.0+0x10/0x10 ? ndisc_send_skb+0x2c0/0x960 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x93/0x110 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe7/0x140 ndisc_send_skb+0x4be/0x960 ? __pfx_ndisc_send_skb+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x65/0x90 ? find_held_lock+0x83/0xa0 ndisc_send_ns+0xb0/0x110 ? __pfx_ndisc_send_ns+0x10/0x10 addrconf_dad_work+0x631/0x8e0 ? lock_acquire+0x180/0x3f0 ? __pfx_addrconf_dad_work+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 process_one_work+0x582/0x9c0 ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 worker_thread+0x93/0x630 ? __kthread_parkme+0xdc/0x100 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x1a5/0x1e0 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x60 ---truncated---
- 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 require input validation and bounds checking that prevent improper array indexing.
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 can detect out-of-bounds array access but does not prevent the weakness by itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevents improper array indexing.
Application security requirements include validation of untrusted input used for indexing or addressing memory structures.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive coding patterns that reduce index-related vulnerabilities.
Secure coding standards explicitly require bounds checking and validation of array indices derived from untrusted data.