CVE-2023-45922VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-45922: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 27 Mar 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 2026-10-26.

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 monitor for official patches or updates from the Mesa project and apply them promptly once available. Until patches are released, organizations should restrict network access to X servers and GLX services, especially from untrusted or external sources, to prevent remote exploitation. Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure of graphical services. Review and harden configurations of graphical environments to disallow connections from untrusted clients or servers. Employ application whitelisting and runtime protections to detect and prevent abnormal crashes or memory corruption attempts. For environments where remote graphical access is necessary, consider using more secure protocols or tunneling mechanisms that authenticate and encrypt sessions, reducing the risk of attacker-controlled servers. Regularly audit and update Linux distributions and graphics libraries to maintain security posture.

Description

glx_pbuffer.c in Mesa 23.0.4 was discovered to contain a segmentation violation when calling __glXGetDrawableAttribute(). NOTE: this is disputed because there are no common situations in which users require uninterrupted operation with an attacker-controller server.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-45922 is moderate due to its medium severity and limited exploitation scenarios. The vulnerability could allow an attacker with network access and low privileges to cause integrity issues by triggering a segmentation violation in the GLX interface, potentially leading to application crashes or memory corruption. However, it does not affect confidentiality or availability directly, and exploitation requires conditions that are uncommon in typical enterprise environments, such as an attacker controlling the X server. Organizations using Linux workstations, servers, or embedded systems with Mesa 23.0.4 or similar versions in graphical environments where remote GLX connections are permitted could be at risk. The impact is more relevant for sectors relying on graphical computing or remote graphical sessions, such as research institutions, software development firms, and media companies. The absence of known exploits and the disputed practical risk reduce the urgency but do not eliminate the need for vigilance.

Summary

CVE-2023-45922 is a vulnerability identified in the Mesa 3D Graphics Library version 23.0.4, specifically within the glx_pbuffer.c source file. The issue arises from a segmentation violation triggered when the __glXGetDrawableAttribute() function is invoked. This function is part of the GLX (OpenGL Extension to the X Window System) interface, which facilitates rendering OpenGL content on X Window System drawables. The segmentation fault indicates improper handling of drawable attributes, potentially leading to memory corruption or integrity violations. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-754, which relates to improper handling of exceptional conditions. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 4.3 (medium), with an attack vector of network (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), requiring low privileges (PR:L), no user interaction (UI:N), unchanged scope (S:U), no confidentiality impact (C:N), low integrity impact (I:L), and no availability impact (A:N). The vulnerability is disputed because typical usage scenarios do not involve an attacker-controlled X server, limiting practical exploitation. No known exploits have been reported in the wild, and no patches were listed at the time of publication. The vulnerability primarily affects systems running Mesa 23.0.4 or similar versions that include the vulnerable code path. It is relevant in environments where clients connect to potentially untrusted X servers or where remote attackers can influence GLX drawable attributes.

CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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 4 Nov 2025, 18:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-754

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats