BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2023-53087High confidence

drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers

Linux · Linux

7.8HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 2 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityHighOperational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 5 Aug 2026

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
  • EPSS is 0.22% for the current model date.

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

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Linux Linux and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 2 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-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.

6 package states
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 2 affected package states 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 releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.6.1.25-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.6.1.25-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.6.1.25-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.6.1.25-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
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 Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-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 Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Optional official sources

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

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

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-2025-13186

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 actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 2 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a number of concurrently running graphics applications. Root cause analysis pointed at an issue in barrier processing code -- a race among perf open / close replacing active barriers with perf requests on kernel context and concurrent barrier preallocate / acquire operations performed during user context first pin / last unpin. When adding a request to a composite tracker, we try to reuse an existing fence tracker, already allocated and registered with that composite. The tracker we obtain may already track another fence, may be an idle barrier, or an active barrier. If the tracker we get occurs a non-idle barrier then we try to delete that barrier from a list of barrier tasks it belongs to. However, while doing that we don't respect return value from a function that performs the barrier deletion. Should the deletion ever fail, we would end up reusing the tracker still registered as a barrier task. Since the same structure field is reused with both fence callback lists and barrier tasks list, list corruptions would likely occur. Barriers are now deleted from a barrier tasks list by temporarily removing the list content, traversing that content with skip over the node to be deleted, then populating the list back with the modified content. Should that intentionally racy concurrent deletion attempts be not serialized, one or more of those may fail because of the list being temporary empty. Related code that ignores the results of barrier deletion was initially introduced in v5.4 by commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"). However, all users of the barrier deletion routine were apparently serialized at that time, then the issue didn't exhibit itself. Results of git bisect with help of a newly developed igt@gem_barrier_race@remote-request IGT test indicate that list corruptions might start to appear after commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), introduced in v5.5. Respect results of barrier deletion attempts -- mark the barrier as idle only if successfully deleted from the list. Then, before proceeding with setting our fence as the one currently tracked, make sure that the tracker we've got is not a non-idle barrier. If that check fails then don't use that tracker but go back and try to acquire a new, usable one. v3: use unlikely() to document what outcome we expect (Andi), - fix bad grammar in commit description. v2: no code changes, - blame commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), v5.5, not commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"), v5.4, - reword commit description. (cherry picked from commit 506006055769b10d1b2b4e22f636f3b45e0e9fc7)

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a number of concurrently running graphics applications. Root cause analysis pointed at an issue in barrier processing code -- a race among perf open / close replacing active barriers with perf requests on kernel context and concurrent barrier preallocate / acquire operations performed during user context first pin / last unpin. When adding a request to a composite tracker, we try to reuse an existing fence tracker, already allocated and registered with that composite. The tracker we obtain may already track another fence, may be an idle barrier, or an active barrier. If the tracker we get occurs a non-idle barrier then we try to delete that barrier from a list of barrier tasks it belongs to. However, while doing that we don't respect return value from a function that performs the barrier deletion. Should the deletion ever fail, we would end up reusing the tracker still registered as a barrier task. Since the same structure field is reused with both fence callback lists and barrier tasks list, list corruptions would likely occur. Barriers are now deleted from a barrier tasks list by temporarily removing the list content, traversing that content with skip over the node to be deleted, then populating the list back with the modified content. Should that intentionally racy concurrent deletion attempts be not serialized, one or more of those may fail because of the list being temporary empty. Related code that ignores the results of barrier deletion was initially introduced in v5.4 by commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"). However, all users of the barrier deletion routine were apparently serialized at that time, then the issue didn't exhibit itself. Results of git bisect with help of a newly developed igt@gem_barrier_race@remote-request IGT test indicate that list corruptions might start to appear after commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), introduced in v5.5. Respect results of barrier deletion attempts -- mark the barrier as idle only if successfully deleted from the list. Then, before proceeding with setting our fence as the one currently tracked, make sure that the tracker we've got is not a non-idle barrier. If that check fails then don't use that tracker but go back and try to acquire a new, usable one. v3: use unlikely() to document what outcome we expect (Andi), - fix bad grammar in commit description. v2: no code changes, - blame commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), v5.5, not commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"), v5.4, - reword commit description. (cherry picked from commit 506006055769b10d1b2b4e22f636f3b45e0e9fc7)

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 local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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: drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a number of concurrently running graphics applications. Root cause analysis pointed at an issue in barrier processing code -- a race among perf open / close replacing active barriers with perf requests on kernel context and concurrent barrier preallocate / acquire operations performed during user context first pin / last unpin. When adding a request to a composite tracker, we try to reuse an existing fence tracker, already allocated and registered with that composite. The tracker we obtain may already track another fence, may be an idle barrier, or an active barrier. If the tracker we get occurs a non-idle barrier then we try to delete that barrier from a list of barrier tasks it belongs to. However, while doing that we don't respect return value from a function that performs the barrier deletion. Should the deletion ever fail, we would end up reusing the tracker still registered as a barrier task. Since the same structure field is reused with both fence callback lists and barrier tasks list, list corruptions would likely occur. Barriers are now deleted from a barrier tasks list by temporarily removing the list content, traversing that content with skip over the node to be deleted, then populating the list back with the modified content. Should that intentionally racy concurrent deletion attempts be not serialized, one or more of those may fail because of the list being temporary empty. Related code that ignores the results of barrier deletion was initially introduced in v5.4 by commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"). However, all users of the barrier deletion routine were apparently serialized at that time, then the issue didn't exhibit itself. Results of git bisect with help of a newly developed igt@gem_barrier_race@remote-request IGT test indicate that list corruptions might start to appear after commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), introduced in v5.5. Respect results of barrier deletion attempts -- mark the barrier as idle only if successfully deleted from the list. Then, before proceeding with setting our fence as the one currently tracked, make sure that the tracker we've got is not a non-idle barrier. If that check fails then don't use that tracker but go back and try to acquire a new, usable one. v3: use unlikely() to document what outcome we expect (Andi), - fix bad grammar in commit description. v2: no code changes, - blame commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), v5.5, not commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"), v5.4, - reword commit description. (cherry picked from commit 506006055769b10d1b2b4e22f636f3b45e0e9fc7)

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 local access 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
?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
local access → vulnerable operation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.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.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
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
A

Official authority intelligence

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

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20250507Security Bulletin 07 May 2025

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 07 May 2025, published on 7 May 2025. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0081Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53066 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53068 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53068 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53076 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53076 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53096 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53097 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53097 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53098 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-1009Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53074 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53076 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53076 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53082 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53082 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53095 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53095 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53096 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53097 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0587Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53066 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53068 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53068 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53076 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53076 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53096 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53097 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53097 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53098 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0560Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53073 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53074 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53074 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53082 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53082 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53095 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53095 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53096 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53098 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0529Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53074 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53080 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53080 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53082 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53082 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53094 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53094 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53095 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53095 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0509Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2023-53065 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53066 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53066 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53068 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53068 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53075 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53075 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53077 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53077 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53078 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53078 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53079 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53079 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53081 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53081 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53084 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53084 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53087 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53087 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53089 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53089 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53090 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53090 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53091 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53091 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53092 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53092 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53093 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53093 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53096 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53096 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53098 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-53098 Référence CVE CVE-2023-53099 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2023-029962Linux の Linux Kernel における脆弱性

Linux の Linux Kernel には、不特定の脆弱性が存在します。

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.
Fix availability varies by product
Affected
Linux: 311770173fac27845a3a83e2c16100a54d308f72 < 5e784a7d07af42057c0576fb647b482f4cb0dc2c, 311770173fac27845a3a83e2c16100a54d308f72 < 6ab7d33617559cced63d467928f478ea5c459021, 311770173fac27845a3a83e2c16100a54d308f72 < 5c7591b8574c52c56b3994c2fbef1a3a311b5715, 311770173fac27845a3a83e2c16100a54d308f72 < 9159db27fb19bbf1c91b5c9d5285e66cc96cc5ff, 311770173fac27845a3a83e2c16100a54d308f72 < e0e6b416b25ee14716f3549e0cbec1011b193809, 5.5
Fixed
Linux: < 5.5, 5.10.176 ≤ 5.10.*, 5.15.104 ≤ 5.15.*, 6.1.21 ≤ 6.1.*, 6.2.8 ≤ 6.2.*, 6.3 ≤ *
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 May 2025 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 09:12 UTC · CWE not yet assigned

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-2025-13186
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

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-2023-53087 · cve.blacktree.nl