CVE-2024-36293
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 · uneditedImproper access control in the EDECCSSA user leaf function for some Intel(R) Processors with Intel(R) SGX may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.
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 confidenceImproper access control in the EDECCSSA user leaf function for Intel processors with Intel SGX allows an authenticated local user to potentially cause denial of service via local access. EDECCSSA is an SGX instruction for decrypting data from CPU enclaves.
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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 CPU supports SGXRun 'cpuid | grep -i sgx' or check /proc/cpuinfo for 'sgx_lc' or 'sgx' in flags. On Windows, use 'wmic cpu get caption,description' and cross-reference with Intel SGX compatibility lists.Affected if The CPU does not report SGX support in CPUID leaf 7, sub-leaf 0 (EBX bit 2) or if /proc/cpuinfo lacks SGX-related flags.
-
Confirm SGX is enabled in BIOS/UEFIReboot and enter BIOS/UEFI setup. Navigate to Processor or Security settings and verify the SGX option is set to Enabled (or 'Software Enclave' if available). Some systems show 'SGX' as a visible BIOS option only when the CPU supports it.Affected if SGX is present in CPU capabilities but disabled or not configurable in BIOS - the vulnerability only applies when SGX is operational.
-
Check SGX driver or enclave runtime is activeOn Linux, run 'ls /dev/sgx*' or check 'dmesg | grep -i sgx' for driver load messages. On Windows, verify the 'Intel SGX' service is present in Services or check Device Manager for SGX devices.Affected if SGX is loaded and operational (driver loaded, enclaves can execute) - the attack surface only exists when the SGX software stack is active.
-
Identify the exact Intel processor modelRun 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' (Linux) or 'wmic cpu get Name,ProcessorId' (Windows) to get the exact CPU model number (e.g., Core i7-10700). Compare this model against Intel's advisory for CVE-2024-36293.Affected if The processor is an Intel CPU with SGX and falls within the specific generations/models Intel lists as affected in their security advisory.
A user is affected if their Intel processor supports SGX, SGX is enabled in BIOS and active in the OS, and the specific CPU model is among those Intel identifies as vulnerable to this improper access control issue in the EDECCSSA instruction.
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.
From vendor dataApply Intel microcode updates via BIOS/firmware updates for affected processors. Verify SGX functionality remains operational after applying the update.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36293 — 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-2024-36293 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