BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence

Full vulnerability report · 2024

CVE-2023-50868High confidence

n/a — Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

n/a · n/a

7.5HighCVSS 3.1

Recommended action

Within 7 days

High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; 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.

2 package states

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 release	Source package	Vendor state	Fixed version	Evidence
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive	`isc-dhcp`	Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing.	`Not published in this feed`	Canonical record ↗Source updated 9 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive	`unbound`	Vendor fix publishedCanonical reports that a fixed source package version has been published. Repository candidate availability is not checked by BlackTree.	`1.19.1-1ubuntu1`	Canonical record ↗Source updated 9 Sept 2026

Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current

SSA-915275 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 1 · interimSiemens ProductCERTSSA-915275: Multiple Vulnerabilities in SINEC INS Before V1.0 SP2 Update 3

1 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

SINEC INS

Summary: The Closest Encloser Proof aspect of the DNS protocol (in RFC 5155 when RFC 9276 guidance is skipped) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption for SHA-1 computations) via DNSSEC responses in a random subdomain attack, aka the "NSEC3" issue. The RFC 5155 specification implies that an algorithm must perform thousands of iterations of a hash function in certain situations.
Remediation: Update to V1.0 SP2 Update 3 or later version

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-2023-55601

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 with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available

What, why and how

The Closest Encloser Proof aspect of the DNS protocol (in RFC 5155 when RFC 9276 guidance is skipped) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption for SHA-1 computations) via DNSSEC responses in a random subdomain attack, aka the "NSEC3" issue. The RFC 5155 specification implies that an algorithm must perform thousands of iterations of a hash function in certain situations.

What

Why

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.

What

Why

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.

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.

Reference recorded

A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.

Likely attack path: a network path → Uncontrolled Resource Consumption → disrupt the affected service
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-400 ↗
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
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.

NetworkUnauthenticatedDenial of serviceCWE-400Public exploit reference

Official authority intelligence

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

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-55601Official EUVD mapping

0 linked advisory records.

Official EUVD record

BSI · German · WID-SEC-W-2024-1347Microsoft Windows: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in verschiedenen Versionen von Microsoft Windows und Microsoft Windows Server ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode mit Administratorrechten auszuführen, seine Privilegien zu erweitern, beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, Informationen offenzulegen oder einen Denial of Service Zustand herbeizuführen.

n/a — Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

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

EUVD-2023-55601

What, why and how

Exploit reality and attack path

Official authority intelligence

Patch and workaround

Evidence and provenance

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