CVE-2023-25505
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 BMC contains a vulnerability in the IPMI handler of the AMI MegaRAC BMC , where an attacker with the appropriate level of authorization can cause a buffer overflow, which may lead to denial of service, information disclosure, or 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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the IPMI handler of AMI MegaRAC BMC firmware used in NVIDIA DGX-1 systems. An attacker with authenticated access to IPMI can trigger the overflow, potentially leading to denial of service, information disclosure, or arbitrary code execution.
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< 3.39.30CVSS 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 NVIDIA DGX-1 systemCheck system model via `ipmitool -I lanplus -H <bmc-ip> -U <user> -P <pass> fru print` or check physical labelingAffected if System is not a NVIDIA DGX-1 or does not use AMI MegaRAC BMC firmware
-
Locate BMC IP addressDetermine the BMC IP address from the host or documentation; for DGX-1, typically accessible via dedicated BMC network portAffected if Cannot locate BMC IP address for version checking
-
Query BMC firmware versionRun `ipmitool -I lanplus -H <bmc-ip> -U <user> -P <pass> mc info` or use Redfish: `curl -k https://<bmc-ip>/redfish/v1/Managers/Self`Affected if Unable to query BMC version due to authentication failure or network issues
-
Compare installed version to affected rangeExtract the firmware version from the output and compare to 3.39.30 (any version below 3.39.30 is affected)Affected if Installed BMC firmware version is less than 3.39.30
-
Verify IPMI interface is enabledRun `ipmitool -I lanplus -H <bmc-ip> -U <user> -P <pass> channel info 1` to check IPMI over LAN statusAffected if IPMI over LAN is enabled and accessible (this is the attack vector for the buffer overflow)
System is affected if it is a NVIDIA DGX-1 (or uses AMI MegaRAC BMC) with BMC firmware version below 3.39.30 and IPMI is enabled/accessible on the network.
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 data3.39.30
Apply NVIDIA firmware updates for DGX-1 when available; if no patch exists, restrict IPMI/Redfish network access to trusted networks, enforce strong authentication, and monitor for unauthorized IPMI access attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-25505 — 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-2023-25505 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