CVE-2023-43632
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 · uneditedAs noted in the “VTPM.md” file in the eve documentation, “VTPM is a server listening on port 8877 in EVE, exposing limited functionality of the TPM to the clients. VTPM allows clients to execute tpm2-tools binaries from a list of hardcoded options” The communication with this server is done using protobuf, and the data is comprised of 2 parts: 1. Header 2. Data When a connection is made, the server is waiting for 4 bytes of data, which will be the header, and these 4 bytes would be parsed as uint32 size of the actual data to come. Then, in the function “handleRequest” this size is then used in order to allocate a payload on the stack for the incoming data. As this payload is allocated on the stack, this will allow overflowing the stack size allocated for the relevant process with freely controlled data. * An attacker can crash the system. * An attacker can gain control over the system, specifically on the “vtpm_server” process which has very high privileges.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in EVE-OS VTPM server (port 8877) where the 4-byte header size value is used directly to allocate a stack buffer for incoming protobuf data without validating against a maximum size limit, allowing an attacker to overflow the stack with controlled data and potentially gain code execution in the high-privilege vtpm_server process.
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>= 3.0.0, < 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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 if vtpm_server is listening on port 8877Run 'netstat -tlnp | grep 8877' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 8877' to see if the VTPM server port is open and listeningAffected if Port 8877 is open and vtpm_server process is listening, indicating the vulnerable service is exposed
-
Identify the EVE-OS versionCheck the installed EVE-OS version using 'cat /etc/eve-version' or the appropriate system information command for your EVE-OS installationAffected if Version is 3.0.0 or higher but lower than 9.5.0
-
Verify vtpm_server process is runningRun 'ps aux | grep vtpm_server' to confirm the vtpm_server process is activeAffected if The vtpm_server process is running, confirming the vulnerable component is active
-
Check network exposure of VTPM serviceReview firewall rules or network configuration to determine if port 8877 is accessible from network segments beyond localhostAffected if Port 8877 is accessible from network (not bound to localhost only)
If the system runs EVE-OS version 3.0.0 through 9.4.x with vtpm_server actively listening on port 8877, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 strict bounds validation on the header size value before stack allocation, enforce a reasonable maximum size limit, and consider using heap allocation or safe memory handling functions instead of stack-based buffers for variable-length data.
9.5.0 or later
- Identify all systems running Edge Virtualization Engine in the environment
- Check the current version of Edge Virtualization Engine (affected versions: >= 3.0.0, < 9.5.0)
- Plan and schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade process
- Upgrade Edge Virtualization Engine to version 9.5.0 or later
- After upgrade, verify that the vtpm_server service is running correctly and listening on the expected port
- Confirm the upgrade was successful by checking the version number
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-43632 — 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-2023-43632 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