VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2023Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-5870: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.2 · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Affects Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.2Low

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

EPSS: 2.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 84% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 10 Dec 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 26 Oct 2026.

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

2) Restrict and monitor high-privileged remote access to PostgreSQL instances and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security components to prevent unauthorized use of the pg_cancel_backend role. 3) Audit and limit the use of non-core PostgreSQL extensions, especially those that implement custom background workers, ensuring they are from trusted sources and regularly updated. 4) Implement resource usage monitoring and alerting on PostgreSQL background workers to detect abnormal cancellation signals or resource consumption patterns. 5) Employ network segmentation and access controls to isolate critical database components from less trusted network zones. 6) Conduct regular security reviews and penetration testing focused on privilege escalation and denial of service vectors within database environments. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific conditions required for exploitation and the nature of the affected components.

Description

A flaw was found in PostgreSQL involving the pg_cancel_backend role that signals background workers, including the logical replication launcher, autovacuum workers, and the autovacuum launcher. Successful exploitation requires a non-core extension with a less-resilient background worker and would affect that specific background worker only. This issue may allow a remote high privileged user to launch a denial of service (DoS) attack.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is a potential denial of service on specific PostgreSQL background workers introduced by non-core extensions within Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.2 environments. This could degrade the availability of certain database functions related to replication or maintenance tasks, potentially affecting cluster stability or performance. However, since the vulnerability requires high privileges and affects only specific background workers, the risk to overall system confidentiality and integrity is minimal. Organizations relying heavily on PostgreSQL extensions in critical infrastructure or cloud-native applications may experience service interruptions if exploited. The low CVSS score and absence of known exploits reduce immediate risk, but the presence of high-privileged remote access vectors means insider threats or compromised accounts could leverage this vulnerability. European entities with strict uptime requirements or regulatory mandates for availability should consider this vulnerability in their risk assessments.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 04:08 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats