CVE-2023-0209
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 · uneditedNVIDIA DGX-1 SBIOS contains a vulnerability in the Uncore PEI module, where authentication of the code executed by SSA is missing, which may lead to arbitrary code execution, denial of service, escalation of privileges assisted by a firmware implant, information disclosure assisted by a firmware implant, data tampering, and SecureBoot bypass.
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 confidenceNVIDIA DGX-1 System BIOS contains a vulnerability in the Uncore PEI module where authentication of code executed by SSA (Silicon Security Architecture) is missing. This allows an attacker with a firmware implant to execute arbitrary code in the pre-boot environment, potentially bypassing SecureBoot, achieving privilege escalation, and causing denial of service or information disclosure.
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< 52w_3a13CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 if the system is an NVIDIA DGX-1Run 'dmidecode -s system-product-name' or check system hardware documentation to confirm the model is DGX-1Affected if System is not an NVIDIA DGX-1 (this CVE only affects DGX-1 systems)
-
Check the installed SBIOS versionRun 'dmidecode -s bios-version' or use IPMI/BMC interfaces (ipmitool -I lanplus -H <bmc_ip> -U <user> -P <pass> raw command) to retrieve the SBIOS firmware versionAffected if The displayed version is lower than 52w_3a13 (e.g., 52w_3a12, older versions)
-
Check if the Uncore PEI module is presentInspect system firmware dump or use BMC to read the PEI module inventory; on DGX-1, this is typically accessible via system management interfaces or firmware extraction toolsAffected if The Uncore PEI module version cannot be determined or is earlier than the patched build containing 52w_3a13
-
Verify SSA configuration in pre-boot environmentAccess the BIOS/UEFI setup (reboot and press appropriate key) and look for Silicon Security Architecture or SSA-related settings under Security or Advanced menus; alternatively, check firmware configuration files for SSA enablementAffected if SSA (Silicon Security Architecture) is enabled or present in the pre-boot configuration
You are affected if you own an NVIDIA DGX-1 system with SBIOS version < 52w_3a13 and the Uncore PEI module with SSA is present in your firmware configuration.
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 data52w_3a13
Apply the NVIDIA firmware/BIOS update for DGX-1 when available, and maintain SecureBoot enforcement as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-0209 — 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-2023-0209 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