CVE-2023-5557VulnerabilityPublished 13 Oct 2023Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-5557: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Oct 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

Organizations should prioritize monitoring for updates and patches from Red Hat addressing CVE-2023-5557 and apply them promptly once available. In the interim, restrict the processing of untrusted files through tracker-miners or disable the tracker-extract process if feasible. Implement enhanced sandboxing and process isolation techniques, such as using SELinux policies or containerization, to limit the impact of potential sandbox escapes. Employ strict access controls and monitoring on systems running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 to detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Regularly audit and harden user interaction points that could trigger the vulnerability, including email clients and file-sharing services. Additionally, conduct threat hunting for signs of prior tracker-extract compromises to prevent chained exploitation. Network segmentation and application whitelisting can further reduce the attack surface. Finally, educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted files to reduce the likelihood of triggering the vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in the tracker-miners package. A weakness in the sandbox allows a maliciously-crafted file to execute code outside the sandbox if the tracker-extract process has first been compromised by a separate vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk, especially those using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 in environments where untrusted files are processed, such as file servers, content management systems, or user desktops. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox, potentially leading to privilege escalation and full system compromise. This could result in unauthorized data modification, disruption of critical services, or lateral movement within corporate networks. Given the high integrity impact, attackers could alter system configurations or inject malicious code, undermining trust in affected systems. The requirement for user interaction and a prior compromise of tracker-extract limits the ease of exploitation but does not eliminate the threat, particularly in targeted attacks or advanced persistent threat scenarios. European organizations in sectors like finance, government, and critical infrastructure, which often rely on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, could face operational disruptions and data integrity issues if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 07:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats