CVE-2023-32627
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 · uneditedA floating point exception vulnerability was found in sox, in the read_samples function at sox/src/voc.c:334:18. This flaw can lead to a denial of service.
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 confidenceA floating point exception occurs in sox's VOC audio file parser when processing specially crafted input in the read_samples function at sox/src/voc.c:334:18, causing the program to crash and result in denial of service.
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= 38= 6.0= 7.0= 14.4.3= 8.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify sox is installedRun 'which sox' or 'rpm -q sox' to check if the sox package is present on the systemAffected if sox is installed and the system runs sox to process audio files
-
Determine installed sox versionRun 'sox --version' to display the installed version numberAffected if the installed version matches 14.4.3 or matches the affected distribution versions (Fedora 38, RHEL 6.0, RHEL 7.0, EPEL 8.0)
-
Check if VOC format support is availableRun 'sox --help-format voc' or 'sox -i -t voc' on a test file to verify VOC format parsing is enabled in this buildAffected if VOC format is supported and sox can parse VOC audio files
-
Identify VOC file processing vectorsLook for scripts, automated tools, or user-upload mechanisms that process VOC files through sox, such as 'sox input.voc output.wav'Affected if sox is used to process VOC files from untrusted sources
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable sox version (14.4.3 or the listed distribution versions) and processes VOC audio files with sox.
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 · scopedUpdate sox to the latest version which includes proper input validation or floating point exception handling in the VOC file parser. Alternatively, avoid processing untrusted VOC files with sox until a patch is available.
Latest stable sox version available in distribution repositories (version > 14.4.3)
- 1. Identify the current installed version of sox (sound exchange) using: dnf list installed sox or rpm -qa | grep sox
- 2. Check for available updates in your distribution's repository: dnf check-update sox (for Fedora/EL)
- 3. Backup any critical audio files or configurations before upgrading
- 4. Apply the security update: dnf update sox (Fedora/EL) or apt update && apt upgrade sox (Debian-based)
- 5. Verify the new version is installed: sox --version
- 6. Test sox functionality with your typical audio conversion tasks to confirm the patch works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32627 — 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-2023-32627 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