CVE-2023-52934

MEDIUMNVD 4.74.7
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 4.7 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-03-27. NVD baseline CVSS 4.7; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 3 sources updated this week
4.7EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 4.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mm/MADV_COLLAPSE: catch !none !huge !bad pmd lookups

In commit 34488399fa08 ("mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to MADV_COLLAPSE") we make the following change to find_pmd_or_thp_or_none():

  • if (!pmd_present(pmde))
  • return SCAN_PMD_NULL;
+ if (pmd_none(pmde)) + return SCAN_PMD_NONE;

This was for-use by MADV_COLLAPSE file/shmem codepaths, where MADV_COLLAPSE might identify a pte-mapped hugepage, only to have khugepaged race-in, free the pte table, and clear the pmd. Such codepaths include:

A) If we find a suitably-aligned compound page of order HPAGE_PMD_ORDER already in the pagecache. B) In retract_page_tables(), if we fail to grab mmap_lock for the target mm/address.

In these cases, collapse_pte_mapped_thp() really does expect a none (not just !present) pmd, and we want to suitably identify that case separate from the case where no pmd is found, or it's a bad-pmd (of course, many things could happen once we drop mmap_lock, and the pmd could plausibly undergo multiple transitions due to intervening fault, split, etc). Regardless, the code is prepared install a huge-pmd only when the existing pmd entry is either a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd, or the none-pmd.

However, the commit introduces a logical hole; namely, that we've allowed !none- && !huge- && !bad-pmds to be classified as genuine pte-table-mapping-pmds. One such example that could leak through are swap entries. The pmd values aren't checked again before use in pte_offset_map_lock(), which is expecting nothing less than a genuine pte-table-mapping-pmd.

We want to put back the !pmd_present() check (below the pmd_none() check), but need to be careful to deal with subtleties in pmd transitions and treatments by various arch.

The issue is that __split_huge_pmd_locked() temporarily clears the present bit (or otherwise marks the entry as invalid), but pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() still need to return true while the pmd is in this transitory state. For example, x86's pmd_present() also checks the _PAGE_PSE , riscv's version also checks the _PAGE_LEAF bit, and arm64 also checks a PMD_PRESENT_INVALID bit.

Covering all 4 cases for x86 (all checks done on the same pmd value):

1) pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() All we actually know here is that the PSE bit is set. Either: a) We aren't racing with __split_huge_page(), and PRESENT or PROTNONE is set. => huge-pmd b) We are currently racing with __split_huge_page(). The danger here is that we proceed as-if we have a huge-pmd, but really we are looking at a pte-mapping-pmd. So, what is the risk of this danger?

The only relevant path is:

madvise_collapse() -> collapse_pte_mapped_thp()

Where we might just incorrectly report back "success", when really the memory isn't pmd-backed. This is fine, since split could happen immediately after (actually) successful madvise_collapse(). So, it should be safe to just assume huge-pmd here.

2) pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Either: a) PSE not set and either PRESENT or PROTNONE is. => pte-table-mapping pmd (or PROT_NONE) b) devmap. This routine can be called immediately after unlocking/locking mmap_lock -- or called with no locks held (see khugepaged_scan_mm_slot()), so previous VMA checks have since been invalidated.

3) !pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() Not possible.

4) !pmd_present() && !pmd_trans_huge() Neither PRESENT nor PROTNONE set => not present

I've checked all archs that implement pmd_trans_huge() (arm64, riscv, powerpc, longarch, x86, mips, s390) and this logic roughly translates (though devmap treatment is unique to x86 and powerpc, and (3) doesn't necessarily hold in general -- but that doesn't matter since !pmd_present() always takes failure path).

Also, add a comment above find_pmd_or_thp_or_none() ---truncated---

CVSS v3
4.7
EG Score
4.7MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
21
EG Risk 21/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity47% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 4.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.1%
EPSS %ILE
1st
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

March 27, 2025

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2023-52934(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(2)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatkernel-0:5.14.0-427.13.1.el9_42024-04-30redhat
linuxKernel @ 6.1.11 (fixes >=6.1.0)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.1.11-1: fixed in 6.1.11-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.1.11-1: fixed in 6.1.11-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.1.11-1: fixed in 6.1.11-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 31× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 93 of 171 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 7 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 78 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-23 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  2. 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  3. 2026-10-21 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  4. 2026-10-20 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  5. 2026-10-19 14:55 UTCOSV refresh
  6. 2026-10-18 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-17 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  8. 2026-10-16 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  9. 2026-10-15 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  10. 2026-10-14 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  11. 2026-10-13 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  12. 2026-10-12 18:13 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-12 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  14. 2026-10-11 21:38 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-11 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  16. 2026-10-10 19:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  17. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  18. 2026-10-08 17:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  19. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  20. 2026-10-06 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  21. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  22. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  23. 2026-10-03 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  24. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  25. 2026-09-30 16:37 UTCEG score recompute
Show 68 more
  1. 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  2. 2026-09-29 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  3. 2026-09-28 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  4. 2026-09-26 21:11 UTCOSV refresh
  5. 2026-09-26 00:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  6. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  7. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  8. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  9. 2026-09-18 19:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  10. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  11. 2026-09-16 05:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  12. 2026-09-15 03:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  13. 2026-09-13 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  14. 2026-09-12 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  15. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  16. 2026-09-11 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  17. 2026-09-08 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  18. 2026-09-07 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  19. 2026-09-07 06:48 UTCOSV refresh
  20. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  21. 2026-09-05 15:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  22. 2026-09-04 13:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  23. 2026-09-04 05:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  24. 2026-09-02 14:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  25. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  26. 2026-09-01 04:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  27. 2026-08-30 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  28. 2026-08-30 01:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  29. 2026-08-28 21:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  30. 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  31. 2026-08-26 14:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  32. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  33. 2026-08-21 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  34. 2026-08-20 22:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  35. 2026-08-20 16:31 UTCOSV refresh
  36. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  37. 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  38. 2026-08-16 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  39. 2026-08-16 02:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  40. 2026-08-15 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  41. 2026-08-13 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  42. 2026-08-12 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  43. 2026-08-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  44. 2026-08-10 23:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  45. 2026-08-09 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  46. 2026-08-08 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  47. 2026-08-07 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  48. 2026-08-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  49. 2026-08-05 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  50. 2026-08-05 10:21 UTCEG score recompute
  51. 2026-08-05 10:21 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-08-05 10:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6rc5-mh5g-63wm · GitHub CVSS 4.7
  53. 2026-08-04 11:06 UTCEG score recompute
  54. 2026-08-04 11:06 UTCVendor advisory
  55. 2026-08-04 11:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6rc5-mh5g-63wm · GitHub CVSS 4.7
  56. 2026-08-04 10:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  57. 2026-08-04 09:45 UTCEG score recompute
  58. 2026-08-04 09:45 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-08-04 09:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6rc5-mh5g-63wm · GitHub CVSS 4.7
  60. 2026-08-03 10:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  61. 2026-08-01 04:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  62. 2026-07-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  63. 2026-07-30 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  64. 2026-07-28 15:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  65. 2026-07-26 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  66. 2026-07-25 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  67. 2026-07-24 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 1st percentile
  68. 2026-07-24 10:41 UTCOSV refresh

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2023-52934?
CVE-2023-52934 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on March 27, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/MADV_COLLAPSE: catch !none !huge !bad pmd lookups In commit 34488399fa08 ("mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to MADVCOLLAPSE") we make the following change to findpmdorthpornone(): if (!pmd_present(pmde)) return…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2023-52934 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2023-52934 was published on March 27, 2025. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 5, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2023-52934 actively exploited?
CVE-2023-52934 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (1st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-52934?
CVE-2023-52934 has a CVSS v3 base score of 4.7 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2023-52934?
A fix for CVE-2023-52934 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2023-52934 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2023-52934

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-52934?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.