VulnerabilityPublished 12 Feb 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-36293: Intel(R) Processors with Intel(R) SGX · Denial of Service

Affects Intel(R) Processors with Intel(R) SGXSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Feb 2025
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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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-2024-36293, European organizations should: 1) Monitor Intel's official advisories and apply firmware and microcode updates as soon as patches become available to address the improper access control in the EDECCSSA user leaf function. 2) Restrict local user privileges rigorously, ensuring that only trusted and necessary personnel have access to systems with Intel SGX enabled, minimizing the risk of local exploitation. 3) Implement strict access controls and auditing on systems running SGX workloads to detect unusual or unauthorized attempts to access enclave management functions. 4) Employ endpoint security solutions capable of monitoring and alerting on anomalous local activities related to SGX operations. 5) Consider isolating SGX-enabled systems in segmented network zones to limit lateral movement in case of exploitation attempts. 6) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on enclave security and local privilege abuse scenarios. 7) Educate system administrators and security teams about the specific risks associated with SGX vulnerabilities to ensure rapid response and remediation. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on local access control, monitoring enclave-specific operations, and prioritizing patch management for microcode and firmware updates.

Description

Improper access control in the EDECCSSA user leaf function for some Intel(R) Processors with Intel(R) SGX may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-36293 is the potential disruption of services that rely on Intel SGX for secure enclave operations. This can affect confidentiality-sensitive applications in finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government sectors that use SGX to protect critical workloads. A denial of service could lead to temporary unavailability of secure processing environments, causing operational delays, loss of trust in secure computing capabilities, and potential compliance issues if secure enclave availability is mandated. While the vulnerability does not directly expose data or allow privilege escalation, the interruption of SGX services can impact business continuity and security posture. Organizations with multi-tenant environments or shared infrastructure may face increased risk if local users can exploit this vulnerability to disrupt enclave operations. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop techniques over time. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is not critical, it requires timely attention to avoid service degradation or denial of secure enclave functionality.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 22:16 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats