CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2023-23625

CVE-2023-23625 — Denial of service in HAMT Decoding in go-unixfs

go-unixfs is an implementation of a unix-like filesystem on top of an ipld merkledag. Trying to read malformed HAMT sharded directories can cause panics and virtual memory leaks. If you are reading untrusted user input, an attacker can then trigger a panic. This is caused by bogus `fanout` parameter in the HAMT directory nodes. Users are advised to upgrade to version 0.4.3 to resolve this issue. Users unable to upgrade should not feed untrusted user data to the decoding functions.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

ipfs

go_unixfs

CVSS base

5.9

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

ipfs

Products (1)

go unixfs

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.9CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-400

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1499Endpoint Denial of Service

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • ipfsevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-400other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.