CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2023-42118

CVE-2023-42118 — Exim libspf2 Integer Underflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Exim libspf2 Integer Underflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Exim libspf2. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the parsing of SPF macros. When parsing SPF macros, the process does not properly validate user-supplied data, which can result in an integer underflow before writing to memory. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. . Was ZDI-CAN-17578.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, zdi

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

52%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

exim

libspf2

CVSS base

7.5

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)

exim

Products (1)

libspf2

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.5CVSS 3.0HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-191

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • eximevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-191other 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.