CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2023-27590

CVE-2023-27590 — Rizin has stack-based buffer overflow when parsing GDB registers profile files

Rizin is a UNIX-like reverse engineering framework and command-line toolset. In version 0.5.1 and prior, converting a GDB registers profile file into a Rizin register profile can result in a stack-based buffer overflow when the `name`, `type`, or `groups` fields have longer values than expected. Users opening untrusted GDB registers files (e.g. with the `drpg` or `arpg` commands) are affected by this flaw. Commit d6196703d89c84467b600ba2692534579dc25ed4 contains a patch for this issue. As a workaround, review the GDB register profiles before loading them with `drpg`/`arpg` commands.

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

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

rizinorg

rizin

CVSS base

7.8

HIGH

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

Total

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)

rizinorg

Products (1)

rizin

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.8CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-121
  • CWE-120

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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.