CVE-2023-28383
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 conditions check in some Intel(R) BIOS PPAM firmware may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.
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 Intel BIOS PPAM (Platform Proprietary Asset Manager) firmware involves an improper conditions check that allows a privileged user to escalate their privileges via local access. The flaw appears to be a logic error in validation routines that should prevent privilege escalation, but instead permits it under certain conditions.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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.
-
Confirm Intel PPAM firmware presenceCheck system firmware/BIOS information for PPAM (Platform Proprietary Asset Manager) component. On Windows, use 'wmic bios get version' or check UEFI/BIOS settings. On Linux, check /sys/class/dmi/id/ or use dmidecode.Affected if System contains Intel PPAM firmware component
-
Determine installed PPAM firmware versionRetrieve the PPAM firmware version through Intel tools (e.g., Intel Management Engine Identifier Tool), UEFI shell, or BIOS setup utility. Compare against any available version information from Intel security advisories.Affected if PPAM version matches the vulnerable version range (if known) or cannot be determined to be patched
-
Verify local access configurationCheck if the system allows local console access, local login, or local administrative sessions. Review system access policies and local user account configurations.Affected if Local access is enabled and privileged user accounts exist on the system
-
Check for privileged local accountsEnumerate local administrator or elevated privilege accounts. On Windows, use 'net localgroup Administrators'. On Linux, check /etc/sudoers or 'getent group sudo'/'wheel'.Affected if Local privileged accounts are present that could potentially exploit the flaw
-
Review system threat modelAssess whether untrusted individuals could gain physical or local access to the system, and whether those individuals could leverage existing privileged accounts.Affected if Untrusted local access to privileged accounts is possible
A system is affected if it contains Intel PPAM firmware with a vulnerable version AND supports local access with privileged user accounts that could trigger the improper conditions check flaw.
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 the vendor-provided BIOS/firmware update from Intel that addresses this improper conditions check. Since the vulnerability requires local access and a privileged user account, ensure proper access controls and monitoring are in place until the firmware update can be deployed.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-28383 — 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-2023-28383 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