CVE-2023-29146
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 · uneditedThe utility functions used by Malwarebytes EDR 1.0.11 on Linux for calculating a cryptographic hash of data bytes truncate the hashed data if it exceeds 4GB. This leads to an integer wrap-around if the data is larger than the maximum unsigned integer value (32-bit). Attackers could create a colliding hash value for two different strings by attaching 4GB of data to a string that is less than 4GB in size.
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 confidenceMalwarebytes EDR 1.0.11 for Linux contains a 32-bit integer overflow in its cryptographic hash calculation utility functions. When processing data larger than 4GB, the size counter wraps around due to unsigned 32-bit integer limitations, causing truncation of the hashed data. This allows attackers to create hash collisions by appending exactly 4GB of data to any string smaller than 4GB.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/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 if Malwarebytes EDR is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep malwarebytes' or 'rpm -qa | grep malwarebytes' to list installed Malwarebytes packagesAffected if No Malwarebytes EDR package is found, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Determine the installed version of Malwarebytes EDRRun 'dpkg -l | grep malwarebytes-edr' or check the version via the vendor's utility if available; compare the installed version to 1.0.11Affected if The installed version is 1.0.11; older versions are not affected by this specific flaw
-
Locate the hash calculation utility or integrity verification moduleSearch for files related to Malwarebytes EDR hash utilities, typically under /opt/malwarebytes/ or /usr/lib/malwarebytes/; examine file paths mentioned in product documentationAffected if The hash calculation component exists and is in use within the EDR installation
-
Inspect for files or processes that may be targets of hash collision attacksAudit the system for executable files or integrity-monitored assets that could be exploited; check if any monitored files approach or exceed 4GB in sizeAffected if Files larger than 4GB exist and are monitored by the EDR's hash-based integrity checks
A user is affected if Malwarebytes EDR version 1.0.11 is installed on Linux and the hash calculation functionality is actively monitoring or verifying files that could be targeted for collision attacks.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of Malwarebytes EDR that properly handles 64-bit size calculations in hash functions. Until then, treat hash outputs from this component as potentially unreliable for files approaching or exceeding 4GB.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-29146 — 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-2023-29146 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