CVE-2023-23904VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-23904: UEFI firmware for some Intel(R) Processors · escalation of privilege

Affects UEFI firmware for some Intel(R) ProcessorsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: High
Subsequent system availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Subsequent System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Sep 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

1. Apply firmware updates from Intel or system vendors as soon as they become available to address this vulnerability. 2. Restrict and monitor privileged local user accounts rigorously to minimize the risk of insider threats exploiting this flaw. 3. Implement strict access controls and use endpoint security solutions to detect and prevent unauthorized privilege escalations. 4. Employ hardware-based security features such as Intel Boot Guard and Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to enhance firmware integrity verification. 5. Conduct regular security audits and firmware integrity checks to detect anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Coordinate patching schedules carefully to minimize downtime, especially in critical infrastructure environments. 7. Educate system administrators and security teams about the risks associated with firmware vulnerabilities and the importance of timely updates. 8. Use multi-factor authentication and least privilege principles to reduce the likelihood of privileged account compromise. 9. Maintain an inventory of affected hardware to prioritize patching efforts effectively. 10. Monitor vendor advisories and threat intelligence feeds for updates on exploit developments or additional mitigations.

Description

NULL pointer dereference in the UEFI firmware for some Intel(R) Processors may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-23904 can be significant in environments where Intel processors are widely deployed, particularly in enterprise servers, workstations, and critical infrastructure systems. The ability for a privileged local user to escalate privileges within the firmware layer can undermine system integrity and potentially disrupt availability, leading to operational downtime or unauthorized control over hardware initialization processes. This could facilitate further attacks such as persistent malware implantation or bypassing security controls enforced at the OS level. Organizations in sectors like finance, government, telecommunications, and manufacturing, which rely heavily on Intel hardware and have complex user privilege models, are at increased risk. The requirement for local privileged access limits the threat to insider threats or attackers who have already compromised user accounts with elevated rights. However, given the firmware-level nature of the vulnerability, remediation is complex and requires coordinated firmware updates, which may impact system availability during patching. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to increased risk of sophisticated attacks that compromise foundational system security.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 00:10 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats