CVE-2023-2253
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in the `/v2/_catalog` endpoint in distribution/distribution, which accepts a parameter to control the maximum number of records returned (query string: `n`). This vulnerability allows a malicious user to submit an unreasonably large value for `n,` causing the allocation of a massive string array, possibly causing a denial of service through excessive use of memory.
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 · high confidenceThe `/v2/_catalog` endpoint in distribution/distribution accepts a query parameter `n` to limit records returned. An attacker can submit an excessively large value for `n`, causing the server to allocate a massive string array, leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service.
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 versions= 4.0all 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
- 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 if OpenShift is deployedCheck if your environment runs Red Hat Openshift Container Platform version 4.0, Openshift Api For Data Protection, or Openshift Developer Tools And Services. Look at your OpenShift installation or container inventory.Affected if Any of these Red Hat products are deployed and the Docker Registry v2 API is accessible
-
Confirm Docker Registry v2 API exposureAttempt to access the /v2/_catalog endpoint on your container registry service. This is typically at your registry URL followed by /v2/_catalog (e.g., https://registry.example.com/v2/_catalog).Affected if The endpoint responds with a JSON catalog response, indicating the API is exposed
-
Verify parameter handling behaviorSend a request to /v2/_catalog with an excessively large n parameter value (such as n=999999999) and observe server response time and memory behavior. Compare response to a normal request with n=10.Affected if The server takes significantly longer to respond or shows signs of high memory usage with the large n value, indicating lack of proper parameter validation
You are affected if you run any of the listed Red Hat OpenShift products and have the Docker Registry v2 API exposed without server-side validation limiting the n parameter on the /v2/_catalog endpoint.
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 dataImplement server-side validation to limit the `n` parameter to a reasonable maximum value (e.g., 1000), and add request size/length constraints to prevent abuse.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-2253 — 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-2023-2253 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