CVE-2023-53642

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-10-07. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2025-31956 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-h9cf-c7q8-gcqh (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
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: 0.2%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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

x86: fix clear_user_rep_good() exception handling annotation

This code no longer exists in mainline, because it was removed in commit d2c95f9d6802 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory clearing") upstream.

However, rather than backport the full range of x86 memory clearing and copying cleanups, fix the exception table annotation placement for the final 'rep movsb' in clear_user_rep_good(): rather than pointing at the actual instruction that did the user space access, it pointed to the register move just before it.

That made sense from a code flow standpoint, but not from an actual usage standpoint: it means that if user access takes an exception, the exception handler won't actually find the instruction in the exception tables.

As a result, rather than fixing it up and returning -EFAULT, it would then turn it into a kernel oops report instead, something like:

BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000020081000 #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page ... RIP: 0010:clear_user_rep_good+0x1c/0x30 arch/x86/lib/clear_page_64.S:147 ... Call Trace: __clear_user arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:103 [inline] clear_user arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:124 [inline] iov_iter_zero+0x709/0x1290 lib/iov_iter.c:800 iomap_dio_hole_iter fs/iomap/direct-io.c:389 [inline] iomap_dio_iter fs/iomap/direct-io.c:440 [inline] __iomap_dio_rw+0xe3d/0x1cd0 fs/iomap/direct-io.c:601 iomap_dio_rw+0x40/0xa0 fs/iomap/direct-io.c:689 ext4_dio_read_iter fs/ext4/file.c:94 [inline] ext4_file_read_iter+0x4be/0x690 fs/ext4/file.c:145 call_read_iter include/linux/fs.h:2183 [inline] do_iter_readv_writev+0x2e0/0x3b0 fs/read_write.c:733 do_iter_read+0x2f2/0x750 fs/read_write.c:796 vfs_readv+0xe5/0x150 fs/read_write.c:916 do_preadv+0x1b6/0x270 fs/read_write.c:1008 __do_sys_preadv2 fs/read_write.c:1070 [inline] __se_sys_preadv2 fs/read_write.c:1061 [inline] __x64_sys_preadv2+0xef/0x150 fs/read_write.c:1061 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x39/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

which then looks like a filesystem bug rather than the incorrect exception annotation that it is.

[ The alternative to this one-liner fix is to take the upstream series that cleans this all up:

68674f94ffc9 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for small memory copies") 20f3337d350c ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for small memory clearing") adfcf4231b8c ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory copies") * d2c95f9d6802 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory clearing") 3639a535587d ("x86: move stac/clac from user copy routines into callers") 577e6a7fd50d ("x86: inline the 'rep movs' in user copies for the FSRM case") 8c9b6a88b7e2 ("x86: improve on the non-rep 'clear_user' function") 427fda2c8a49 ("x86: improve on the non-rep 'copy_user' function") * e046fe5a36a9 ("x86: set FSRS automatically on AMD CPUs that have FSRM") e1f2750edc4a ("x86: remove 'zerorest' argument from __copy_user_nocache()") 034ff37d3407 ("x86: rewrite '__copy_user_nocache' function")

with either the whole series or at a minimum the two marked commits being needed to fix this issue ]

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

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)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 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
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
5th
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 (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.

The score's inputs: 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

October 7, 2025

Last Modified

February 3, 2026

References (4)

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2023-53642(1)

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

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
linuxKernel @ 6.1.29 (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
linux6.1.27-1
  • every version up to 6.1.37-1: fixed in 6.1.37-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.3.7-1: fixed in 6.3.7-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.3.7-1: fixed in 6.3.7-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 36× 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 193 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 100 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-06 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  2. 2026-11-05 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  3. 2026-11-04 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  4. 2026-11-03 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  5. 2026-11-02 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  6. 2026-11-01 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  7. 2026-10-31 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  8. 2026-10-30 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  9. 2026-10-29 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  10. 2026-10-28 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  11. 2026-10-27 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  12. 2026-10-26 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  13. 2026-10-25 17:27 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-25 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  15. 2026-10-24 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  16. 2026-10-24 11:33 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-24 11:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-h9cf-c7q8-gcqh · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  18. 2026-10-23 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  19. 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  20. 2026-10-21 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  21. 2026-10-20 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  22. 2026-10-19 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  23. 2026-10-18 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  24. 2026-10-18 07:40 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-17 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
Show 68 more
  1. 2026-10-16 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  2. 2026-10-15 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  3. 2026-10-14 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  4. 2026-10-13 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  5. 2026-10-12 18:12 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-12 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  7. 2026-10-11 21:37 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  9. 2026-10-10 19:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  10. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  12. 2026-10-06 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  13. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  14. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  15. 2026-10-03 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  16. 2026-10-02 03:40 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  18. 2026-09-30 16:37 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  20. 2026-09-29 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  21. 2026-09-28 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  22. 2026-09-26 00:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  23. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  24. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  25. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  26. 2026-09-18 19:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  27. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  28. 2026-09-16 05:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  29. 2026-09-15 03:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  30. 2026-09-13 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  31. 2026-09-12 21:36 UTCOSV refresh
  32. 2026-09-12 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  33. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  34. 2026-09-11 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  35. 2026-09-08 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  36. 2026-09-07 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 5th percentile
  37. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  38. 2026-09-05 15:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  39. 2026-09-04 13:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  40. 2026-09-04 05:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  41. 2026-09-02 14:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  42. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  43. 2026-09-01 04:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  44. 2026-08-30 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  45. 2026-08-30 01:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  46. 2026-08-28 21:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  47. 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  48. 2026-08-26 14:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  49. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  50. 2026-08-25 02:26 UTCOSV refresh
  51. 2026-08-23 00:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  52. 2026-08-21 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  53. 2026-08-20 22:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  54. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  55. 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  56. 2026-08-16 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  57. 2026-08-16 02:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  58. 2026-08-15 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  59. 2026-08-13 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  60. 2026-08-12 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  61. 2026-08-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  62. 2026-08-10 23:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  63. 2026-08-09 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  64. 2026-08-08 19:49 UTCOSV refresh
  65. 2026-08-08 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  66. 2026-08-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  67. 2026-08-05 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile
  68. 2026-08-03 10:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 4th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2023-53642?
CVE-2023-53642 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 7, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: fix clear_user_rep_good() exception handling annotation This code no longer exists in mainline, because it was removed in commit d2c95f9d6802 ("x86: don't use REP_GOOD or ERMS for user memory clearing") upstream. However,…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2023-53642 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2023-53642 was published on October 7, 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 February 3, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2023-53642 actively exploited?
CVE-2023-53642 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (5th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-53642?
CVE-2023-53642 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2023-53642?
A fix for CVE-2023-53642 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2023-53642 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-2023-53642

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-53642?

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

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs