BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2022-48744High confidence

net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy()

Linux · Linux

7.5HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
Distribution package intelligence

Ubuntu vendor package status

Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.

1 package state
Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Ubuntu releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-raspi-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 8 Sept 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2022-53623

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy() In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid intentionally writing across neighboring fields. Use flexible arrays instead of zero-element arrays (which look like they are always overflowing) and split the cross-field memcpy() into two halves that can be appropriately bounds-checked by the compiler. We were doing: #define ETH_HLEN 14 #define VLAN_HLEN 4 ... #define MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE (ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN) ... struct mlx5e_tx_wqe *wqe = mlx5_wq_cyc_get_wqe(wq, pi); ... struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg *eseg = &wqe->eth; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg *dseg = wqe->data; ... memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, xdptxd->data, MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE); target is wqe->eth.inline_hdr.start (which the compiler sees as being 2 bytes in size), but copying 18, intending to write across start (really vlan_tci, 2 bytes). The remaining 16 bytes get written into wqe->data[0], covering byte_count (4 bytes), lkey (4 bytes), and addr (8 bytes). struct mlx5e_tx_wqe { struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl; /* 0 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg eth; /* 16 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg data[]; /* 32 0 */ /* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg { u8 swp_outer_l4_offset; /* 0 1 */ u8 swp_outer_l3_offset; /* 1 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l4_offset; /* 2 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l3_offset; /* 3 1 */ u8 cs_flags; /* 4 1 */ u8 swp_flags; /* 5 1 */ __be16 mss; /* 6 2 */ __be32 flow_table_metadata; /* 8 4 */ union { struct { __be16 sz; /* 12 2 */ u8 start[2]; /* 14 2 */ } inline_hdr; /* 12 4 */ struct { __be16 type; /* 12 2 */ __be16 vlan_tci; /* 14 2 */ } insert; /* 12 4 */ __be32 trailer; /* 12 4 */ }; /* 12 4 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg { __be32 byte_count; /* 0 4 */ __be32 lkey; /* 4 4 */ __be64 addr; /* 8 8 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; So, split the memcpy() so the compiler can reason about the buffer sizes. "pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to struct mlx5e_tx_wqe nor struct mlx5e_umr_wqe. "objdump -d" shows no meaningful object code changes (i.e. only source line number induced differences and optimizations).

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy() In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid intentionally writing across neighboring fields. Use flexible arrays instead of zero-element arrays (which look like they are always overflowing) and split the cross-field memcpy() into two halves that can be appropriately bounds-checked by the compiler. We were doing: #define ETH_HLEN 14 #define VLAN_HLEN 4 ... #define MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE (ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN) ... struct mlx5e_tx_wqe *wqe = mlx5_wq_cyc_get_wqe(wq, pi); ... struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg *eseg = &wqe->eth; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg *dseg = wqe->data; ... memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, xdptxd->data, MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE); target is wqe->eth.inline_hdr.start (which the compiler sees as being 2 bytes in size), but copying 18, intending to write across start (really vlan_tci, 2 bytes). The remaining 16 bytes get written into wqe->data[0], covering byte_count (4 bytes), lkey (4 bytes), and addr (8 bytes). struct mlx5e_tx_wqe { struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl; /* 0 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg eth; /* 16 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg data[]; /* 32 0 */ /* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg { u8 swp_outer_l4_offset; /* 0 1 */ u8 swp_outer_l3_offset; /* 1 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l4_offset; /* 2 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l3_offset; /* 3 1 */ u8 cs_flags; /* 4 1 */ u8 swp_flags; /* 5 1 */ __be16 mss; /* 6 2 */ __be32 flow_table_metadata; /* 8 4 */ union { struct { __be16 sz; /* 12 2 */ u8 start[2]; /* 14 2 */ } inline_hdr; /* 12 4 */ struct { __be16 type; /* 12 2 */ __be16 vlan_tci; /* 14 2 */ } insert; /* 12 4 */ __be32 trailer; /* 12 4 */ }; /* 12 4 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg { __be32 byte_count; /* 0 4 */ __be32 lkey; /* 4 4 */ __be64 addr; /* 8 8 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; So, split the memcpy() so the compiler can reason about the buffer sizes. "pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to struct mlx5e_tx_wqe nor struct mlx5e_umr_wqe. "objdump -d" shows no meaningful object code changes (i.e. only source line number induced differences and optimizations).

Why

A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy() In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid intentionally writing across neighboring fields. Use flexible arrays instead of zero-element arrays (which look like they are always overflowing) and split the cross-field memcpy() into two halves that can be appropriately bounds-checked by the compiler. We were doing: #define ETH_HLEN 14 #define VLAN_HLEN 4 ... #define MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE (ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN) ... struct mlx5e_tx_wqe *wqe = mlx5_wq_cyc_get_wqe(wq, pi); ... struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg *eseg = &wqe->eth; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg *dseg = wqe->data; ... memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, xdptxd->data, MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE); target is wqe->eth.inline_hdr.start (which the compiler sees as being 2 bytes in size), but copying 18, intending to write across start (really vlan_tci, 2 bytes). The remaining 16 bytes get written into wqe->data[0], covering byte_count (4 bytes), lkey (4 bytes), and addr (8 bytes). struct mlx5e_tx_wqe { struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl; /* 0 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg eth; /* 16 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg data[]; /* 32 0 */ /* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg { u8 swp_outer_l4_offset; /* 0 1 */ u8 swp_outer_l3_offset; /* 1 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l4_offset; /* 2 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l3_offset; /* 3 1 */ u8 cs_flags; /* 4 1 */ u8 swp_flags; /* 5 1 */ __be16 mss; /* 6 2 */ __be32 flow_table_metadata; /* 8 4 */ union { struct { __be16 sz; /* 12 2 */ u8 start[2]; /* 14 2 */ } inline_hdr; /* 12 4 */ struct { __be16 type; /* 12 2 */ __be16 vlan_tci; /* 14 2 */ } insert; /* 12 4 */ __be32 trailer; /* 12 4 */ }; /* 12 4 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg { __be32 byte_count; /* 0 4 */ __be32 lkey; /* 4 4 */ __be64 addr; /* 8 8 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; So, split the memcpy() so the compiler can reason about the buffer sizes. "pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to struct mlx5e_tx_wqe nor struct mlx5e_umr_wqe. "objdump -d" shows no meaningful object code changes (i.e. only source line number induced differences and optimizations).

Why

A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Out-of-bounds Write → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-787

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write. The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-787
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-W-2024-1422Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen nicht spezifizierten Angriff

Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen.

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0326Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-45888 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48064 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48064 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48628 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48628 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48633 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48633 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48646 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48646 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48667 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48667 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48668 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48668 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48673 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48673 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48706 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48706 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48744 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48744 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48766 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48766 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48771 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48771 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48816 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48887 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48887 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48929 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48929 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48976 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48976 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48979 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48979 Référence CVE CVE-2022-4899 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=C

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0316Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-45888 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48064 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48064 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48628 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48628 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48633 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48633 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48646 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48646 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48667 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48667 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48668 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48668 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48673 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48673 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48706 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48706 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48744 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48744 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48766 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48766 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48771 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48771 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48816 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48887 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48887 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48929 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48929 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48976 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48976 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48979 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48979 Référence CVE CVE-2022-4899 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=C

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0167Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de Debian LTS

2-1~deb11u1 Résumé De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de Debian LTS. Elles permettent à un attaquant de provoquer une élévation de privilèges, une atteinte à la confidentialité des données et un déni de service. Solutions Se référer au bulletin de sécurité de l'éditeur pour l'obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation). Documentation Bulletin de sécurité Debian LTS DLA-4475-1 du 10 février 2026 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2026/02/msg00016.html Bulletin de sécurité Debian LTS DLA-4476-1 du 10 février 2026 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2026/02/msg00017.html Référence CVE CVE-2022-48744 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48744 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49168 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49168 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49465 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49465 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49711 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49711 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49743 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49743 Référence CVE CVE-2023-52658 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52658 Référence CVE CVE-2023-52975 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52975 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53421 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53421 Référence CVE CVE-2023-54207 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2024-AVI-0693Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-48733 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48734 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48734 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48735 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48735 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48736 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48736 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48737 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48737 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48738 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48738 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48739 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48739 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48740 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48740 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48743 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48743 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48744 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48744 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48745 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48745 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48746 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48746 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48747 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48747 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48748 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48748 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48749 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48749 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48751 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48751 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48752 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48752 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48753 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2024-AVI-0578Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-48733 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48734 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48734 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48735 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48735 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48736 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48736 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48737 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48737 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48738 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48738 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48739 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48739 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48740 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48740 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48743 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48743 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48744 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48744 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48745 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48745 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48746 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48746 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48747 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48747 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48748 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48748 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48749 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48749 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48751 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48751 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48752 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48752 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48753 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 < 49bcbe531f79fc35bb10020f7695f9f01e4f0ca8; b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 < 8fbdf8c8b8ab82beab882175157650452c46493e; b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 < ad5185735f7dab342fdd0dd41044da4c9ccfef67; 4.9
Fixed
< 4.9; 5.10.248 ≤ 5.10.*; 5.16.6 ≤ 5.16.*; 5.17 ≤ *
Action
Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 20 Jun 2024 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 08:52 UTC · CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-53623
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2022-48744 · cve.blacktree.nl