Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2023-53524 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique LSA Secrets (T1003.004); ranked at the 6th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-32738
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: iwlwifi: pcie: Fix integer overflow in iwl_write_to_user_buf An integer overflow occurs in the iwl_write_to_user_buf() function, which is called by the iwl_dbgfs_monitor_data_read() function. static bool iwl_write_to_user_buf(char __user *user_buf, ssize_t count,…
more
void *buf, ssize_t *size, ssize_t *bytes_copied) { int buf_size_left = count - *bytes_copied; buf_size_left = buf_size_left - (buf_size_left % sizeof(u32)); if (*size > buf_size_left) *size = buf_size_left; If the user passes a SIZE_MAX value to the "ssize_t count" parameter, the ssize_t count parameter is assigned to "int buf_size_left". Then compare "*size" with "buf_size_left" . Here, "buf_size_left" is a negative number, so "*size" is assigned "buf_size_left" and goes into the third argument of the copy_to_user function, causing a heap overflow. This is not a security vulnerability because iwl_dbgfs_monitor_data_read() is a debugfs operation with 0400 privileges.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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.