Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.94% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-31127High confidence
DMTF-2023-0001: SPDM mutual authentication bypass
DMTF · libspdm
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-QW76-4V8P-XQ9F ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
9.1CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableCritical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs DMTF libspdm and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. A vulnerability has been identified in SPDM session establishment in libspdm prior to version 2.3.1. If a device supports both DHE session and PSK session with mutual authentication, the attacker may be able to establish the session with `KEY_EXCHANGE` and `PSK_FINISH` to bypass the mutual authentication. This is most likely to happen when the Requester begins a session using one method (DHE, for example) and then uses the other method's finish (PSK_FINISH in this example) to establish the session. The session hashes would be expected to fail in this case, but the condition was not detected. This issue only impacts the SPDM responder, which supports `KEY_EX_CAP=1 and `PSK_CAP=10b` at same time with mutual authentication requirement. The SPDM requester is not impacted. The SPDM responder is not impacted if `KEY_EX_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=01b`. The SPDM responder is not impacted if mutual authentication is not required. libspdm 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 are all impacted. Older branches are not maintained, but users of the 2.3 branch may receive a patch in version 2.3.2. The SPDM specification (DSP0274) does not contain this vulnerability.
What
libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. A vulnerability has been identified in SPDM session establishment in libspdm prior to version 2.3.1. If a device supports both DHE session and PSK session with mutual authentication, the attacker may be able to establish the session with `KEY_EXCHANGE` and `PSK_FINISH` to bypass the mutual authentication. This is most likely to happen when the Requester begins a session using one method (DHE, for example) and then uses the other method's finish (PSK_FINISH in this example) to establish the session. The session hashes would be expected to fail in this case, but the condition was not detected. This issue only impacts the SPDM responder, which supports `KEY_EX_CAP=1 and `PSK_CAP=10b` at same time with mutual authentication requirement. The SPDM requester is not impacted. The SPDM responder is not impacted if `KEY_EX_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=01b`. The SPDM responder is not impacted if mutual authentication is not required. libspdm 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 are all impacted. Older branches are not maintained, but users of the 2.3 branch may receive a patch in version 2.3.2. The SPDM specification (DSP0274) does not contain this vulnerability.
Why
The product does not properly determine which state it is in, causing it to assume it is in state X when in fact it is in state Y, causing it to perform incorrect operations in a security-relevant manner.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. A vulnerability has been identified in SPDM session establishment in libspdm prior to version 2.3.1. If a device supports both DHE session and PSK session with mutual authentication, the attacker may be able to establish the session with `KEY_EXCHANGE` and `PSK_FINISH` to bypass the mutual authentication. This is most likely to happen when the Requester begins a session using one method (DHE, for example) and then uses the other method's finish (PSK_FINISH in this example) to establish the session. The session hashes would be expected to fail in this case, but the condition was not detected. This issue only impacts the SPDM responder, which supports `KEY_EX_CAP=1 and `PSK_CAP=10b` at same time with mutual authentication requirement. The SPDM requester is not impacted. The SPDM responder is not impacted if `KEY_EX_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=01b`. The SPDM responder is not impacted if mutual authentication is not required. libspdm 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 are all impacted. Older branches are not maintained, but users of the 2.3 branch may receive a patch in version 2.3.2. The SPDM specification (DSP0274) does not contain this vulnerability.
Why
The product does not properly determine which state it is in, causing it to assume it is in state X when in fact it is in state Y, causing it to perform incorrect operations in a security-relevant manner.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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 No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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 None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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
- an adjacent network → Incomplete Internal State Distinction → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-372 ↗
CWE-372: Incomplete Internal State Distinction. The product does not properly determine which state it is in, causing it to assume it is in state X when in fact it is in state Y, causing it to perform incorrect operations in a security-relevant manner.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.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.
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
- libspdm: < 2.3.2
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 8 May 2023 · Last source change 28 Jan 2025, 20:53 UTC · CWE-372 · Incomplete Internal State Distinction
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-35451
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
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.