CVE-2023-3347VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jul 2023Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-3347: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Jul 2023
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. Review and audit Samba SMB2 signing configurations to ensure that packet signing is properly enforced and not bypassed under any circumstances. 2. Temporarily disable SMB2 if feasible or restrict SMB2 traffic to trusted network segments until a patch is available. 3. Monitor network traffic for unusual SMB2 activity or signs of man-in-the-middle attacks using network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) and SMB protocol analyzers. 4. Implement network segmentation and enforce strict access controls to limit exposure of SMB services to untrusted networks. 5. Keep Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 systems and Samba packages updated with the latest security advisories and patches once released by Red Hat. 6. Employ additional cryptographic protections such as IPsec or VPN tunnels to secure SMB traffic in transit. 7. Educate system administrators about this vulnerability and encourage prompt configuration reviews and incident response readiness.

Description

A vulnerability was found in Samba's SMB2 packet signing mechanism. The SMB2 packet signing is not enforced if an admin configured "server signing = required" or for SMB2 connections to Domain Controllers where SMB2 packet signing is mandatory. This flaw allows an attacker to perform attacks, such as a man-in-the-middle attack, by intercepting the network traffic and modifying the SMB2 messages between client and server, affecting the integrity of the data.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of SMB2 communications, particularly in environments where Samba is used for file sharing or Domain Controller interactions on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 systems. An attacker capable of intercepting network traffic could modify SMB2 messages, potentially leading to unauthorized changes in file operations, authentication bypass scenarios, or disruption of domain services. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity compromise can lead to data corruption, unauthorized privilege escalation, or lateral movement within networks. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure that rely heavily on SMB protocols and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 are particularly vulnerable. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate but non-trivial risk that requires timely attention to prevent exploitation, especially given the lack of authentication or user interaction requirements.

CWE-924Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product establishes a communication channel with an endpoint and receives a message from that endpoint, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the message was not modified during transmission.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 17:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-924

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats