dbcve.org
Type ConfusionWeakness · CWE-843

CVE-2023-31322

HIGH · 8.7 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-06
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
89/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click

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 · unedited
Type confusion in the ASP could allow an attacker to pass a malformed argument to the Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability trusted application (RAS TA) potentially leading to a read or write to shared memory resulting in loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability.

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 confidence

Type confusion in the Application Service Provider (ASP) allows attackers to pass malformed arguments to the Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability trusted application (RAS TA), potentially enabling unauthorized read or write operations to shared memory and compromising confidentiality, integrity, or availability.

MitigationApply vendor-provided security patches or firmware updates that address the type confusion vulnerability in the ASP/RAS TA component.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Application Service Provider (ASP) component is present
    List installed software packages or services containing 'ASP', 'Application Service Provider', or related RAS (Reliability Availability Serviceability) components. On Linux, use package managers (dpkg, rpm, yum) or inspect /var/log for ASP-related entries. On Windows, check Programs and Features or registry for ASP RAS TA components.
    Affected if The ASP or RAS TA component is found installed on the system
  2. Determine the installed version of the RAS TA component
    Query the installed RAS TA trusted application version using vendor-specific tools (e.g., ipmitool, ilom, BMC utilities, or OEM management interfaces). Check firmware version for embedded systems. Compare against any available version information from vendor security advisories.
    Affected if A version is found that matches or predates known vulnerable versions (if vendor discloses specific affected versions)
  3. Verify if the ASP/RAS TA interface is enabled
    Inspect system configuration, BMC/管理接口 settings, or service configuration files for ASP RAS TA service status. Check if the trusted application listening interface is active or exposed (common paths: /opt/vendor/ras, /usr/local/ras, or vendor-specific BMC paths).
    Affected if The ASP RAS TA service or interface is in an enabled or active state
  4. Check shared memory configuration and access controls
    Inspect /dev/shm, /proc/sysvipc, or platform-specific shared memory segments for RAS-related allocations. Verify permissions (ls -la on /dev/shm or ipcs -m) to determine if unprotected shared memory regions exist that could be accessed by the RAS TA.
    Affected if Shared memory segments accessible to the RAS TA component exist without proper isolation or access controls
  5. Review system logs for ASP/RAS TA error or exploitation events
    Search system logs (dmesg, /var/log/messages, syslog, BMC logs, SEL logs) for entries containing 'ASP', 'RAS', 'type confusion', 'argument error', or malformed request failures related to the trusted application.
    Affected if Logs contain error messages or anomalies related to ASP RAS TA argument processing

A system is affected if it runs the ASP/RAS TA component (any version prior to vendor patch) with the trusted application interface enabled, allowing potential type confusion attacks on shared memory.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply vendor-provided security patches or firmware updates that address the type confusion vulnerability in the ASP/RAS TA component.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA6.0 h
30.0 hours of engineering $5,120
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-31322 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-31322 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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