Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
CVE-2023-3347 weakens a protection administrators may believe is mandatory: SMB2 message signing. In affected Samba builds, signing may not be enforced even when required, allowing a network-positioned attacker to modify SMB2 traffic. The main business risk is data integrity, not data theft or outage.
Executive priority
Treat this as a moderate-priority integrity risk. It is not listed as actively exploited in the supplied evidence, but it undermines a security control administrators may rely on. Patch exposed or Domain Controller-related Samba systems promptly through normal security maintenance windows.
Technical view
Samba’s SMB2 signing enforcement can fail when "server signing = required" is configured, or on SMB2 connections to Domain Controllers where signing is mandatory. The CVSS 3.1 score is 5.9 with high integrity impact, network attack vector, no privileges, no user interaction, and high attack complexity.
Likely exposure
Exposure is most relevant to Samba servers handling SMB2 where signing is expected to be mandatory, especially Domain Controller use cases. The supplied Red Hat data lists affected samba packages for RHEL 8 and RHEL 9; RHEL 6 and 7 samba entries are listed unaffected. Red Hat Storage 3 status is unknown.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not show CISA KEV listing or confirmed active exploitation. The described attack requires an attacker able to intercept network traffic and modify SMB2 messages between client and server, so realistic risk depends heavily on network position and SMB exposure.
Researcher notes
Key weaknesses are CWE-347 and CWE-924. The evidence supports integrity impact from SMB2 signing not being enforced, not confidentiality or availability impact. Avoid assuming exploit availability. Focus validation on affected Samba package lineage, SMB2 signing policy, Domain Controller role, and network attacker feasibility.
Mitigation direction
- Apply vendor security updates from the relevant Samba, Red Hat, Debian, Fedora, or NetApp advisory.
- Prioritize systems where SMB2 signing is mandatory or Samba acts as a Domain Controller.
- Check vendor guidance for any product-specific configuration or backport details.
- Reduce opportunities for traffic interception on networks carrying SMB traffic.
- Track Red Hat Storage 3 separately because supplied status is unknown.
Validation and detection
- Inventory Samba package versions and map them to vendor advisory fixed builds.
- Identify servers using "server signing = required" or Domain Controller SMB2 signing requirements.
- Confirm patched status through approved package and configuration management records.
- Review SMB network paths for untrusted segments or interception opportunities.
- Document unaffected RHEL 6 and RHEL 7 findings separately from RHEL 8 and RHEL 9.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-347: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCWE-924: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2023-3347 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Medium
- CVSS
- 5.9 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N2.23.6Primary CVE scoreVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
5.9MediumVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- RHSA-2023:4325CVE reference · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHSA-2023:4328CVE reference · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-3347CVE reference · vdb-entry, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHBZ#2222792CVE reference · issue-tracking, x_refsource_REDHAT
- https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2023-3347.htmlCVE reference
- https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BPCSGND7LO467AJGR5DYBGZLTCGTOBCC/CVE reference · x_transferred
- https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OT74M42E6C36W7PQVY3OS4ZM7DVYB64Z/CVE reference · x_transferred
- https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230731-0010/CVE reference · x_transferred
- https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5477CVE reference · x_transferred
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.
Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel
Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.