CVE-2023-6917VulnerabilityPublished 28 Feb 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-6917: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 · Creation of Temporary File With Insecure Permissions

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% 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:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Feb 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

To mitigate CVE-2023-6917, organizations should: 1) Apply any available patches or updates from Red Hat for the PCP package and related systemd services as soon as they are released. 2) Review and harden the privilege separation configuration of PCP services to ensure consistent and minimal privileges, avoiding root-level access where unnecessary. 3) Audit and restrict local user access to PCP user accounts to trusted administrators only, minimizing the risk of local exploitation. 4) Implement file system permissions and access controls on PCP directories and temporary file locations to prevent unauthorized modifications or symlink creation. 5) Monitor system logs and audit trails for suspicious activity related to PCP services and temporary file operations. 6) Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect anomalous behavior indicative of privilege escalation attempts. 7) Educate system administrators about the risks of mixed privilege services and the importance of secure temporary file handling. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on privilege management, access control, and proactive monitoring specific to the PCP context.

Description

A vulnerability has been identified in the Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) package, stemming from the mixed privilege levels utilized by systemd services associated with PCP. While certain services operate within the confines of limited PCP user/group privileges, others are granted full root privileges. This disparity in privilege levels poses a risk when privileged root processes interact with directories or directory trees owned by unprivileged PCP users. Specifically, this vulnerability may lead to the compromise of PCP user isolation and facilitate local PCP-to-root exploits, particularly through symlink attacks. These vulnerabilities underscore the importance of maintaining robust privilege separation mechanisms within PCP to mitigate the potential for unauthorized privilege escalation.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 in enterprise, government, or critical infrastructure environments, this vulnerability poses a risk of local privilege escalation. An attacker who gains local PCP user access could exploit this flaw to escalate privileges to root, potentially compromising system confidentiality and integrity. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of system configurations, or further lateral movement within networks. While the vulnerability does not affect availability directly, the elevated privileges gained could be leveraged to disrupt services or implant persistent threats. Organizations with strict compliance requirements around data protection and system integrity (e.g., GDPR, NIS Directive) may face regulatory and reputational risks if exploited. The requirement for local privileged access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments with multiple users or where insider threats exist.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 18:47 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats