CVE-2023-29147
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 · uneditedIn Malwarebytes EDR 1.0.11 for Linux, it is possible to bypass the detection layers that depend on inode identifiers, because an identifier may be reused when a file is replaced, and because two files on different filesystems can have the same identifier.
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 confidenceMalwarebytes EDR 1.0.11 for Linux relies on inode identifiers to track and detect malicious files. This mechanism can be bypassed because: 1) when a file is replaced, the inode identifier may be reused by the filesystem, allowing the new malicious file to inherit the trusted inode, and 2) inode numbers are not unique across different filesystems, so files on separate filesystems can share the same inode number but have different content.
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<= 1.0.11<= 1.0.14CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify installed Malwarebytes products on LinuxRun 'dpkg -l | grep -i malwarebytes' or 'rpm -qa | grep -i malwarebytes' to list installed Malwarebytes packages. Also check for running processes with 'ps aux | grep -i malwarebytes' and services with 'systemctl list-units | grep -i malwarebytes'.Affected if No Malwarebytes packages or processes are found, meaning the product is not installed and the system is not affected.
-
Determine the exact version of Malwarebytes Endpoint Detection And ResponseIf the EDR product is installed, check the version using 'mbam --version' or by examining the installed package details via 'dpkg -l malwarebytes-endpoint-detection-and-response' or 'rpm -qi malwarebytes-endpoint-detection-and-response'. Compare the version number to the affected range <= 1.0.11.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.11 or lower.
-
Determine the exact version of the Malwarebytes core productIf the core Malwarebytes product is installed, check the version using 'mbam --version' or by examining the package via 'dpkg -l malwarebytes' or 'rpm -qi malwarebytes'. Compare the version number to the affected range <= 1.0.14.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.14 or lower.
-
Verify if inode-based detection is in useReview the EDR detection configuration by examining configuration files in /etc/malwarebytes/ or /opt/malwarebytes/ directories, or check the product documentation for detection rule types. Look for rules or settings that rely on inode numbers rather than cryptographic hashes or full file paths.Affected if The EDR configuration uses inode identifiers for file tracking and detection rules.
You are affected if you have Malwarebytes Endpoint Detection And Response version 1.0.11 or lower, or Malwarebytes version 1.0.14 or lower, and the product is configured to use inode-based detection for file integrity monitoring.
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 · scopedAwait a vendor patch from Malwarebytes addressing the inode-based detection bypass. In the interim, supplement EDR monitoring with additional file integrity controls using cryptographic hashes and path-based detection rules.
Malwarebytes EDR for Linux version 1.0.12 or later (latest stable release)
- 1. Verify the current installed version of Malwarebytes EDR by running: mbam --version or rpm -qi malwarebytes-edr
- 2. Stop the Malwarebytes EDR service using: systemctl stop malwarebytes-edr or service malwarebytes-edr stop
- 3. Update to the latest version of Malwarebytes EDR for Linux using your package manager (apt, yum, or dnf depending on your distribution)
- 4. If using apt: apt update && apt install malwarebytes-edr
- 5. If using yum/dnf: yum update malwarebytes-edr or dnf update malwarebytes-edr
- 6. Verify the new version is installed: mbam --version
- 7. Start the Malwarebytes EDR service: systemctl start malwarebytes-edr or service malwarebytes-edr start
- 8. Verify the service is running: systemctl status malwarebytes-edr
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-29147 — 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-2023-29147 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