CVE-2022-33023
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 · uneditedCVA6 commit 909d85a gives incorrect permission to use special multiplication units when the format of instructions is wrong.
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 confidenceIn CVA6 RISC-V processor core, commit 909d85a introduces a vulnerability where incorrect instruction format handling allows improper permission to access special multiplication units. This could enable unauthorized or incorrect use of hardware multiplication resources when malformed instructions are processed.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 CVA6 git commit versionRun 'git log --oneline -1' or 'git rev-parse HEAD' in the CVA6 source directory to get the current commit hashAffected if The commit hash is after 909d85a (vulnerable) and does not include the fix from subsequent commits
-
Check for vulnerable instruction format codeSearch the codebase for the multiplication unit permission logic - look for files handling instruction format validation for hardware multiply units (typically in decode/ISS modules)Affected if The code contains the flawed instruction format validation introduced in commit 909d85a without the correction
-
Verify multiplication unit access controlsReview the RTL or simulation logs for any multiplication unit access patterns - check if malformed instructions can trigger unauthorized multiply unit accessAffected if Malformed instructions can bypass permission checks for special multiplication units
A system is affected if the CVA6 core is running code based on a commit after 909d85a without the subsequent fix that corrects the instruction format validation logic for multiplication unit permissions.
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 the fix from a subsequent commit that corrects the instruction format validation logic for multiplication unit permissions, or revert to a version before commit 909d85a if a fix is unavailable.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-33023 — 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-2022-33023 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