CVE-2024-36347
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 signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment.
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 confidenceThe AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader has improper signature verification, allowing a local administrator to load malicious microcode into the CPU. This compromises x86 instruction execution integrity, privileged CPU contexts, and the System Management Mode (SMM) environment.
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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/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.
-
Identify AMD processor in systemRun 'wmic cpu get Name,Manufacturer,ProcessorId' or check /proc/cpuinfo on Linux for 'AuthenticAMD' in the vendor fieldAffected if System does not have an AMD CPU, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Check current microcode version loadedOn Linux, read /proc/cpuinfo for 'microcode' version, or use 'cpuid' tool. On Windows, use 'wmic bios get smbiosbiosversion' or check Event Viewer for microcode loading eventsAffected if Microcode version cannot be determined or is significantly outdated compared to AMD's latest microcode releases for that CPU model
-
Verify BIOS/UEFI settings for microcode loadingEnter system BIOS/UEFI setup and check for options related to 'microcode update', 'CPU firmware update', or 'ROM patch' loading. Check if 'secure boot' or signature verification options are enabled or disabledAffected if BIOS settings allow loading unsigned microcode or have disabled signature verification for CPU microcode updates
-
Check for administrative privilege abuse indicatorsReview system event logs (Windows Event Viewer under Application/System logs, or Linux audit logs under /var/log/audit/) for events indicating unauthorized microcode loading, unexpected CPU firmware updates, or execution of tools that interact with CPU microcode (e.g., AMDs loadmocm, msrtools)Affected if Logs show microcode loading activity performed by unexpected accounts or outside of normal OS boot sequences
A system is affected if it runs on an AMD CPU with microcode that lacks proper cryptographic signature verification in the ROM patch loader, allowing a local administrator to load arbitrary microcode.
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 AMD-provided BIOS/firmware microcode updates that implement proper cryptographic signature verification. Restrict administrative privileges and monitor for unauthorized microcode loading until patches are deployed.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36347 — 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-2024-36347 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