CVE-2023-20524
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 · uneditedAn attacker with a compromised ASP could possibly send malformed commands to an ASP on another CPU, resulting in an out of bounds write, potentially leading to a loss a loss of integrity.
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 confidenceA vulnerability in AMD processors allows a compromised Application Security Processor (ASP) to send malformed commands to an ASP on another CPU core, triggering an out-of-bounds memory write. This cross-CPU attack path can lead to integrity compromise, though it requires prior compromise of one ASP as an initial condition.
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
- 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 the AMD Epyc processor modelRun 'lscpu' or check system inventory to confirm the CPU is an AMD Epyc model 72f3, 7313, 7313p, 7343, 7373x, 73f3, 7413, or 7443Affected if The installed processor matches one of these model numbers
-
Locate the ASP firmware versionCheck the BIOS/UEFI settings or use platform-specific tools (such as 'dmidecode -t bios' or AMD's PSP firmware readout utilities) to find the Application Security Processor firmware versionAffected if The ASP firmware version is readable and corresponds to milanpi firmware
-
Compare firmware version to affected releaseIdentify the exact firmware version string (such as milanpi_1.0.0.5) from the ASP/PSP firmware informationAffected if The firmware version is exactly milanpi_1.0.0.5
-
Verify cross-CPU ASP communication is enabledCheck if the AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP) cross-core communication features are enabled in BIOS settings, as this vulnerability requires malformed commands to be sent between ASPs on different coresAffected if Cross-CPU ASP communication is permitted by the BIOS configuration
A system is affected if it uses an AMD Epyc 72f3, 7313, 7313p, 7343, 7373x, 73f3, 7413, or 7443 processor with ASP firmware version milanpi_1.0.0.5 and has cross-CPU ASP communication enabled.
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 AMD-provided firmware/microcode updates for affected processors and ensure BIOS updates are deployed through standard patch management processes.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20524 — 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-2023-20524 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