# CVE-2023-52925: netfilter: nf_tables: don't fail inserts if duplicate has expired

> A logic error in Linux kernel nftables causes insertion failures for expired duplicate entries, potentially leading to denial of service.

- **Severity:** Medium 6.2 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Not needed
- **Attackable:** Local or same network only
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 5 Feb 2025
- **Updated:** 23 May 2026
- **Also known as:** DEBIAN-CVE-2023-52925, GHSA-cgvr-gqfv-x5mj, UBUNTU-CVE-2023-52925

## What is CVE-2023-52925?

CVE-2023-52925 is a medium-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 5 Feb 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

netfilter: nf_tables: don't fail inserts if duplicate has expired

nftables selftests fail:
run-tests.sh testcases/sets/0044interval_overlap_0
Expected: 0-2 . 0-3, got:
W: [FAILED]     ./testcases/sets/0044interval_overlap_0: got 1

Insertion must ignore duplicate but expired entries.

Moreover, there is a strange asymmetry in nft_pipapo_activate:

It refetches the current element, whereas the other ->activate callbacks
(bitmap, hash, rhash, rbtree) use elem->priv.
Same for .remove: other set implementations take elem->priv,
nft_pipapo_remove fetches elem->priv, then does a relookup,
remove this.

I suspect this was the reason for the change that prompted the
removal of the expired check in pipapo_get() in the first place,
but skipping exired elements there makes no sense to me, this helper
is used for normal get requests, insertions (duplicate check)
and deactivate callback.

In first two cases expired elements must be skipped.

For ->deactivate(), this gets called for DELSETELEM, so it
seems to me that expired elements should be skipped as well, i.e.
delete request should fail with -ENOENT error.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2023-52925?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2023-52925?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2023-52925 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2023-52925 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2023-52925 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2023-52925 is a medium-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 5 Feb 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2023-52925 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-52925/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-52925/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52925
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52925
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2023-52925

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-52925/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.