Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.34% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2023-52522High confidence
net: fix possible store tearing in neigh_periodic_work()
Linux · Linux
8.8HighCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 Linux Linux 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.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Canonical Ubuntu Security: 1 affected package state with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
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.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.5.8-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.1.64-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.5.8-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.5.8-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-raspi-realtime | Affected, 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 feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix possible store tearing in neigh_periodic_work() While looking at a related syzbot report involving neigh_periodic_work(), I found that I forgot to add an annotation when deleting an RCU protected item from a list. Readers use rcu_deference(*np), we need to use either rcu_assign_pointer() or WRITE_ONCE() on writer side to prevent store tearing. I use rcu_assign_pointer() to have lockdep support, this was the choice made in neigh_flush_dev().
What
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix possible store tearing in neigh_periodic_work() While looking at a related syzbot report involving neigh_periodic_work(), I found that I forgot to add an annotation when deleting an RCU protected item from a list. Readers use rcu_deference(*np), we need to use either rcu_assign_pointer() or WRITE_ONCE() on writer side to prevent store tearing. I use rcu_assign_pointer() to have lockdep support, this was the choice made in neigh_flush_dev().
Why
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network 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: fix possible store tearing in neigh_periodic_work() While looking at a related syzbot report involving neigh_periodic_work(), I found that I forgot to add an annotation when deleting an RCU protected item from a list. Readers use rcu_deference(*np), we need to use either rcu_assign_pointer() or WRITE_ONCE() on writer side to prevent store tearing. I use rcu_assign_pointer() to have lockdep support, this was the choice made in neigh_flush_dev().
Why
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network 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 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 → vulnerable operation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- 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. - CWE not yet assigned
- 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:N/UI:N/S:U/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.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.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. - Fix availability varies by product
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 2 Mar 2024 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 09:10 UTC · CWE not yet assigned
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
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-2023-57147
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceUnavailable
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
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.