CVE-2023-20525
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 syscall input validation in the ASP Bootloader may allow a privileged attacker to read memory outside the bounds of a mapped register potentially leading to a 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 confidenceThis vulnerability in AMD's ASP Bootloader involves insufficient input validation on syscall parameters, allowing a privileged attacker to read memory beyond the bounds of a mapped register. This out-of-bounds read could expose sensitive information and potentially cause a denial of service through system instability.
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< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100d< romepi_100dCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 modelUse system information commands (such as dmidecode, lscpu, or BIOS identification) to determine the exact Epyc processor SKU installed in the system.Affected if The processor model matches one of the affected variants: Epyc 7h12, 7f72, 7f52, 7f32, 7742, 7702p, 7702, or 7662.
-
Check the current firmware versionQuery the system firmware/BIOS version through vendor-specific tools (such as AMD SMU-fw-tool, IPMI, or BIOS management interfaces). Look for the ASP Bootloader or firmware build identifier.Affected if The firmware version is earlier than romepi_100d (i.e., the version string indicates a build prior to the 100d patch).
-
Verify ASP Bootloader accessibilityDetermine if the ASP (Application Service Processor) Bootloader interface is exposed or accessible in the environment. This typically requires access to the BMC/IPMI or specific AMD diagnostic interfaces.Affected if The ASP Bootloader interface is enabled and accessible to a privileged attacker (local or remote administrative access).
-
Confirm privileged attacker contextReview system access controls and audit logs to determine if an attacker could obtain privileged (administrator/root or equivalent) access to invoke syscalls against the bootloader.Affected if A privileged attacker can execute syscall requests against the ASP Bootloader.
The system is affected if it runs any of the listed AMD Epyc models with firmware versions earlier than romepi_100d and has an accessible ASP Bootloader that a privileged attacker could target.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the vendor-provided bootloader/firmware patch from AMD. Organizations should verify their BIOS/firmware update mechanisms and apply the security update through their standard patch management process.
romepi_100d or later
- Identify the specific Epyc processor model in the affected product list (7h12, 7f72, 7f52, 7f32, 7742, 7702p, 7702, or 7662)
- Access the system BIOS/UEFI firmware management interface or use out-of-band management (BMC/IPMI, iLO, etc.) to initiate a firmware update
- Obtain the AMD Epyc firmware update package for the specific processor model from the system vendor or AMD's official support channels
- Verify the current firmware version is below romepi_100d using either the BIOS setup utility, BMC web interface, or command-line tools like 'dmidecode'
- Apply the firmware update to upgrade to version romepi_100d or later
- Reboot the system and verify the new firmware version is installed successfully
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20525 — 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-2023-20525 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