CVE-2023-52271VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-52271: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Jan 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected =2.0.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize the following actions: 1) Monitor for updates and patches from the vendor or security community related to Topaz Antifraud and the wsftprm.sys driver, and apply them promptly once available. 2) Restrict local access rights to trusted users only, minimizing the number of accounts with the ability to execute local code or interact with kernel drivers. 3) Implement strict endpoint protection policies, including application whitelisting and behavior monitoring, to detect and prevent unauthorized IOCTL calls or attempts to terminate protected processes. 4) Employ advanced endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions capable of identifying suspicious kernel driver interactions or process termination attempts targeting PPL processes. 5) Conduct regular audits of installed kernel drivers and their versions to identify vulnerable components. 6) Educate users and administrators about the risks of local privilege escalation and the importance of maintaining strict access controls. 7) Use system hardening techniques to reduce the attack surface, such as disabling unnecessary drivers or services related to the affected software if feasible. 8) In environments where Topaz Antifraud is critical, consider additional compensating controls such as network segmentation and enhanced monitoring to detect lateral movement or exploitation attempts.

Description

The wsftprm.sys kernel driver 2.0.0.0 in Topaz Antifraud allows low-privileged attackers to kill any (Protected Process Light) process via an IOCTL (which will be named at a later time).

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to endpoint security, especially for those relying on Topaz Antifraud solutions to protect against fraud and malware. The ability to terminate PPL processes undermines the integrity of security controls, potentially allowing attackers to disable anti-fraud mechanisms, evade detection, and maintain persistence on critical systems. This could lead to increased fraud incidents, data breaches, or disruption of business operations. Organizations in finance, banking, e-commerce, and government sectors, where anti-fraud measures are critical, may face heightened exposure. Additionally, since exploitation requires local access, insider threats or attackers who have gained initial footholds could escalate their capabilities by leveraging this vulnerability. The disruption of protected processes could also impact system stability and availability, leading to operational downtime and associated financial losses. Given the medium severity and local attack vector, the threat is more pronounced in environments where endpoint security is paramount and where attackers can gain some level of access to user systems.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 02:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats