CVE-2021-46762
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedInsufficient input validation in the SMU may allow an attacker to corrupt SMU SRAM potentially leading to a loss of integrity or denial of service.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceInsufficient input validation in the System Management Unit (SMU) allows an attacker to send specially crafted inputs that can corrupt SMU SRAM (Static RAM). The SMU is a dedicated processor that handles power management, thermal monitoring, and other critical platform functions. Memory corruption in this trusted component can compromise system integrity or cause denial of service by disrupting these essential management operations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9= milanpi_1.0.0.9CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the AMD Epyc processor modelRun 'dmidecode -t processor | grep -i 'AMD Epyc'' or check /proc/cpuinfo for the CPU model nameAffected if The processor model is NOT one of these: Epyc 72f3, Epyc 7313, Epyc 7313p, Epyc 7343, Epyc 7373x, Epyc 73f3, Epyc 7413, or Epyc 7443 (you are not affected)
-
Locate the SMU firmware versionCheck the system BIOS/UEFI or use vendor tools like 'amd_smu_info' if available, or look in /sys/devices/system/cpu/microcode for AMD microcode version informationAffected if Unable to retrieve the SMU firmware version from the system
-
Compare firmware version against affected releaseIdentify the milanpi firmware version. On AMD Epyc Milan processors, check the SMU firmware version through BIOS settings, AMD's proprietary tools, or the BMC/IPMI interface if presentAffected if The SMU firmware version is milanpi_1.0.0.9 (you are affected)
-
Check if newer firmware is availableContact AMD or your server hardware vendor (Dell, HPE, etc.) to verify if a firmware update beyond milanpi_1.0.0.9 has been released for your specific Epyc modelAffected if Running milanpi_1.0.0.9 and no vendor firmware update has been applied
You are affected only if you are running an AMD Epyc 72f3, 7313, 7313p, 7343, 7373x, 73f3, 7413, or 7443 processor with SMU firmware version milanpi_1.0.0.9.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply processor firmware/microcode updates and BIOS/UEFI updates provided by the hardware vendor (AMD). This is a low-level hardware firmware vulnerability that requires vendor-supplied patches; there are no workarounds.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-46762 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-46762 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data