CVE-2021-26355: Insufficient fencing and checks in System Management Unit (SMU) may result in access to invalid message port registers that could result in
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 22/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.17% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Insufficient fencing and checks in System Management Unit (SMU) may result in access to invalid message port registers that could result in a potential denial-of-service.
- Published
- Jan 11, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 7th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-693
Report tools
Action score
22
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 22 / 40 · 5.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| amd | epyc 7313 | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_7313 |
| amd | epyc 7003 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_7003_firmware |
| amd | epyc 7003 | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_7003 |
| amd | epyc 72f3 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_72f3_firmware |
| amd | epyc 72f3 | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_72f3 |
| amd | epyc 7313 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_7313_firmware |
| amd | epyc 7313p firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_7313p_firmware |
| amd | epyc 7313p | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_7313p |
| amd | epyc 7343 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_7343_firmware |
| amd | epyc 7343 | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_7343 |
| amd | epyc 7373x firmware | cpe:2.3:o:amd:epyc_7373x_firmware |
| amd | epyc 7373x | cpe:2.3:h:amd:epyc_7373x |
and 36 more
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- amd epyc 7003 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 72f3 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7313 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7313p firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7343 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7373x firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 73f3 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7413 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7443 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7443p firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7453 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 74f3 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7513 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7543 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7543p firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7573x firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 75f3 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7643 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7663 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
- amd epyc 7713 firmwarebefore milanpi-sp3_1.0.0.7
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (AMD). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
AMD 3rd Gen EPYC
- variousaffected
Same product
amd: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-26335Improper input and range checking in the AMD Secure Processor (ASP) boot loader image header may allow an attacker to use attacker-controlle31Monitor
- CVE-2021-26331AMD System Management Unit (SMU) contains a potential issue where a malicious user may be able to manipulate mailbox entries leading to arbi31Monitor
- CVE-2021-26315When the AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP) boot rom loads, authenticates, and subsequently decrypts an encrypted FW, due to insufficient31Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-26328Jan 11, 2023 · Failure to verify the mode of CPU execution at the time of SNP_INIT may lead to a potential loss of memory integrity for SNP guests.17Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-26343Jan 11, 2023 · Insufficient validation in ASP BIOS and DRTM commands may allow malicious supervisor x86 software to disclose the contents of sensitive memo22Monitor
- Later →CVE-2021-26396Jan 11, 2023 · Insufficient validation of address mapping to IO in ASP (AMD Secure Processor) may result in a loss of memory integrity in the SNP guest.17Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-693 · Protection Mechanism FailureCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-1likelihood: High · High
- Cross Site TracingCAPEC-107likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Directory IndexingCAPEC-127likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-17likelihood: High · Very High
- Encryption Brute ForcingCAPEC-20likelihood: Low · Low
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another LanguageCAPEC-237likelihood: Low · Very High
- Using Unpublished Interfaces or FunctionalityCAPEC-36likelihood: Medium · High
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.