CVE-2023-43630
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 · uneditedPCR14 is not in the list of PCRs that seal/unseal the “vault” key, but due to the change that was implemented in commit “7638364bc0acf8b5c481b5ce5fea11ad44ad7fd4”, fixing this issue alone would not solve the problem of the config partition not being measured correctly. Also, the “vault” key is sealed/unsealed with SHA1 PCRs instead of SHA256. This issue was somewhat mitigated due to all of the PCR extend functions updating both the values of SHA256 and SHA1 for a given PCR ID. However, due to the change that was implemented in commit “7638364bc0acf8b5c481b5ce5fea11ad44ad7fd4”, this is no longer the case for PCR14, as the code in “measurefs.go” explicitly updates only the SHA256 instance of PCR14, which means that even if PCR14 were to be added to the list of PCRs sealing/unsealing the “vault” key, changes to the config partition would still not be measured. An attacker could modify the config partition without triggering the measured boot, this could result in the attacker gaining full control over the device with full access to the contents of the encrypted “vault”
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 confidencePCR14 is not included in the list of PCRs that seal/unseal the vault key, and due to a code change in measurefs.go (commit 7638364bc0acf8b5c481b5ce5fea11ad44ad7fd4), PCR14 only updates SHA256 values while the vault key uses SHA1 PCRs. This allows an attacker to modify the config partition without being detected by measured boot, potentially gaining full control and access to encrypted vault contents.
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>= 9.0.0, < 9.5.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check installed Edge Virtualization Engine versionRetrieve the installed version of the Edge Virtualization Engine (e.g., via package manager, system info, or firmware version command) and compare it against the affected range: >= 9.0.0 and < 9.0Affected if The installed version falls within >= 9.0.0 and < 9.0 (or equivalently, < 9.5.0)
-
Verify TPM-based vault encryption is enabledDetermine whether the system uses TPM-based sealing for vault keys (e.g., check for TPM-backed key storage configuration, measured boot status, or vault encryption settings)Affected if TPM-based vault encryption is actively in use on the system
-
Inspect PCR configuration for vault key sealingExamine the PCR (Platform Configuration Register) list used when sealing/unsealing the vault key, specifically checking whether PCR14 is included in that listAffected if PCR14 is NOT included in the PCRs used for sealing/unsealing the vault key
-
Verify PCR14 update behavior in measurefs componentInspect the measurefs component (or its configuration) to confirm whether PCR14 updates both SHA1 and SHA256 PCR values, not just SHA256Affected if PCR14 only updates SHA256 values while the vault key uses SHA1-based PCRs for sealing
A system is affected if it runs Edge Virtualization Engine version 9.0.0 through 9.4.x, has TPM-based vault encryption enabled, and uses a PCR configuration for vault key sealing that omits PCR14 or fails to update both SHA1 and SHA256 values for PCR14.
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 · scoped9.5.0
Add PCR14 to the list of PCRs sealing/unsealing the vault key and ensure the code updates both SHA1 and SHA256 PCR values for PCR14, similar to other PCRs.
Edge Virtualization Engine 9.5.0
- Upgrade Edge Virtualization Engine from any version >= 9.0.0 and < 9.5.0 to version 9.5.0 or later.
- After upgrade, verify that PCR14 is now included in the list of PCRs used for sealing/unsealing the vault key.
- Confirm that the vault key is now sealed/unsealed using SHA256 PCRs instead of SHA1.
- Test that modifications to the config partition correctly trigger the measured boot process.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA5.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,216.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-43630 — 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-2023-43630 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