CVE-2023-6119
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 · uneditedAn Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in Trellix GetSusp prior to version 5.0.0.27 allows a local, low privilege attacker to gain access to files that usually require a higher privilege level. This is caused by GetSusp not correctly protecting a directory that it creates during execution, allowing an attacker to take over file handles used by GetSusp. As this runs with high privileges, the attacker gains elevated permissions. The file handles are opened as read-only.
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 confidenceTrellix GetSusp creates a directory during execution that is not properly protected, allowing a low-privilege local attacker to take over file handles used by the high-privilege GetSusp process. This improper privilege management enables the attacker to gain elevated permissions through file handle interception.
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< 5.0.0.27CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Verify Trellix GetSusp is installedLook for GetSusp executable on the system, commonly in program files directories or Trellix product locationsAffected if GetSusp is not found on the system, then not affected
-
Determine the installed GetSusp versionCheck the version of the GetSusp executable via file properties or version information in the installation directoryAffected if The version number cannot be determined or is less than 5.0.0.27
-
Confirm version is within vulnerable rangeCompare the installed version against the affected range: versions prior to 5.0.0.27 are vulnerableAffected if Installed version is less than 5.0.0.27, indicating the vulnerability is present
The system is affected if Trellix GetSusp is installed with a version lower than 5.0.0.27, as this version introduced the fix for the improper directory protection flaw.
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 · scoped5.0.0.27
Upgrade to Trellix GetSusp version 5.0.0.27 or later which addresses the improper directory protection vulnerability.
GetSusp version 5.0.0.27
- Identify the current version of Trellix GetSusp installed on the system
- Download GetSusp version 5.0.0.27 or later from the official Trellix support portal (kcm.trellix.com)
- Uninstall the current version of GetSusp
- Install the updated version 5.0.0.27 or newer
- Verify the installed version is 5.0.0.27 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6119 — 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-2023-6119 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