CVE-2023-3674VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jul 2023Updated 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-3674: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 · Mutable Attestation or Measurement Reporting Data

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 19 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

European organizations should implement the following mitigations: 1) Monitor keylime attestation logs closely for any signature validation errors to detect potential misuse or exploitation attempts. 2) Restrict local privileged access to systems running keylime to minimize the risk of exploitation by unauthorized users. 3) Employ additional layers of device trust verification beyond TPM quotes, such as behavioral monitoring or network segmentation, to reduce reliance on a single attestation mechanism. 4) Stay informed about vendor advisories and apply patches or updates from Red Hat promptly once available. 5) Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on attestation mechanisms to identify weaknesses. 6) Consider deploying compensating controls such as multi-factor authentication and strict access controls on critical systems. 7) Engage with Red Hat support or security teams for guidance on mitigating this vulnerability in specific deployment scenarios.

Description

A flaw was found in the keylime attestation verifier, which fails to flag a device's submitted TPM quote as faulty when the quote's signature does not validate for some reason. Instead, it will only emit an error in the log without flagging the device as untrusted.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is a degradation of trust in device attestation processes that rely on TPM quotes verified by keylime on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 systems. This could allow devices with compromised or tampered TPM data to be erroneously trusted, potentially enabling unauthorized access or persistence within sensitive environments. While the vulnerability does not directly expose confidential data or cause denial of service, it weakens the integrity guarantees of attestation, which is critical in high-security sectors such as finance, government, and critical infrastructure. Organizations using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 with TPM attestation in cloud or on-premises environments may face increased risk of insider threats or lateral movement by attackers who can exploit this flaw. The low CVSS score reflects the limited scope and difficulty of exploitation, but the security impact in environments relying heavily on attestation can be significant. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for vigilance.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 07:03 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats