CVE-2023-54385
Summary
by MITRE • 08/06/2026
Rejected reason: Erroneously reserved under wrong year by automation defect; never assigned.
Once again VulDB remains the best source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/06/2026
This CVE identifier represents a systematic error in the vulnerability assignment process where an entry was mistakenly created under an incorrect year designation due to an automated system malfunction. The rejection indicates that the identifier was never properly validated or assigned within the official CVE database, suggesting a failure in the quality control mechanisms that govern CVE numbering and assignment protocols.
The fundamental technical flaw lies in the automation defect that caused the erroneous year reservation, which violates established CVE management procedures and demonstrates inadequate validation checks within the assignment system. Such defects can compromise the integrity of the vulnerability tracking ecosystem and potentially create confusion for security professionals who rely on accurate temporal attribution of vulnerabilities.
From an operational perspective, this rejected identifier represents a failure in the CVE Numbering Authority's quality assurance processes that should prevent such erroneous assignments from entering the official database. The incident highlights the critical importance of maintaining robust validation procedures to ensure that vulnerability identifiers are properly assigned with correct temporal context and that automated systems do not introduce errors into the tracking infrastructure.
Security practitioners should be aware that this particular identifier was never officially assigned and therefore does not represent an actual vulnerability requiring remediation. However, the incident underscores the need for continuous monitoring of CVE assignment processes and the importance of maintaining accurate historical records within vulnerability databases. The rejection serves as a reminder of the potential risks associated with automated systems in security infrastructure management.
This error type aligns with CWE-200, which addresses improper handling of information, and reflects the broader category of configuration management failures that can compromise security tracking systems. The incident demonstrates the importance of maintaining proper controls over vulnerability assignment processes and highlights the need for regular audits of automated systems to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.
The proper mitigation for such automation defects involves implementing comprehensive validation checks at multiple stages of the CVE assignment process, establishing clear protocols for error detection and correction, and maintaining detailed logging of all assignment activities. Organizations should ensure their vulnerability management systems include mechanisms to identify and flag potential assignment errors before they become part of the official database records.
From an ATT&CK perspective, this represents a failure in the defense-in-depth principles related to system integrity and configuration management, specifically targeting the adversary's ability to leverage confusion in vulnerability tracking systems. The incident illustrates how seemingly minor automation defects can create significant operational risks when they compromise the reliability of security information infrastructure.
The root cause analysis should focus on the specific automation failure that led to the incorrect year designation, including reviewing the validation logic and implementing redundant checks to prevent similar issues from affecting legitimate vulnerability assignments in the future. This type of error demonstrates the critical importance of maintaining high standards in vulnerability management processes and ensuring that all automated systems supporting security infrastructure maintain proper quality control measures.