CVE-2023-20520
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 · uneditedImproper access control settings in ASP Bootloader may allow an attacker to corrupt the return address causing a stack-based buffer overrun potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.
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 confidenceImproper access control in an ASP Bootloader allows corruption of the return address, causing a stack-based buffer overflow that can lead to arbitrary code execution. This is a memory corruption vulnerability in the early boot phase of the system.
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_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5= milanpi_1.0.0.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the AMD EPYC processor modelRun 'dmidecode -t processor' or check system documentation to determine the exact processor model number (e.g., Epyc 72f3, 7313, 7313p, 7343, 7373x, 73f3, 7413, or 7443)Affected if The processor model matches one of the affected models listed in the CVE
-
Retrieve the current firmware versionUse 'dmidecode -s bios-version' or access the BMC/IPMI interface to query the firmware version string. For AMD EPYC Milan processors, look for a version string containing 'milanpi_'.Affected if The firmware version string equals milanpi_1.0.0.5 exactly
-
Verify the boot component versionCheck the ASP Bootloader version through the BMC firmware inventory or by inspecting the boot log for a 'milanpi' or 'ASP Bootloader' version entry during system startupAffected if The ASP Bootloader component reports version 1.0.0.5 from the milanpi baseline
-
Confirm the boot phase vulnerability contextReview the system boot logs (via BMC or serial console) for any anomalies in the early boot phase related to the bootloader (ASP Bootloader)Affected if The system boots using the vulnerable milanpi_1.0.0.5 bootloader firmware with no patch applied
A system is affected if it uses an AMD EPYC Milan processor (72f3, 7313, 7313p, 7343, 7373x, 73f3, 7413, or 7443) with firmware version exactly milanpi_1.0.0.5 containing the vulnerable ASP Bootloader.
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 vendor-provided firmware patches to the bootloader; verify patch integrity before deployment; test thoroughly in staging environments due to the critical nature of bootloader updates.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20520 — 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-2023-20520 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