Understanding CVE-2023-27538: Azure Linux Attestation and libcurl Risk

The short answer is: Microsoft’s MSRC advisory naming Azure Linux as a carrier of the vulnerable libcurl component is an authoritative, product‑scoped attestation — but it is not a technical guarantee that Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product that could include libcurl and therefore be affected by CVE‑2023‑27538. rview
An authentication‑bypass bug in libcurl (tracked as CVE‑2023‑27538) was disclosed in March 2023. The defect arises from libcurl’s connection‑pooling logic: when reusing previously established SSH connections, libcurl failed to include two SSH‑related options in the connection equivalence check. That omission meant libcurl could erroneously reuse an existing SSH connection even after the application changed critical SSH options — a behavior that can lead to credential leakage or unintended access when code or users expect a fresh, independently authenticated session. The vulnerability affects libcurl releases prior to v8.0.0 (the fix appeared in curl/libcurl 8.0.0).
This article explains the technical core of the flaw, why Microsoft’s short MSRC wording matters, what the attestation does and does not mean, how to determine exposure across Microsoft artifacts, and — crucially — how defenders should triage, detect, and remediate potential impact across mixed Windows and Linux estates.

---

What CVE‑2023‑27538 actually is (technical summary)​

How libcurl’s connection pooling works​

libcurl maintains a pool of previously used connections and reuses them to avoid the cost of reconnecting. When libcurl decides whether a candidate pooled connection matches the needs of a new transfer, it compares a set of configuration fields (host, port, protocol, and a list of relevant options). If the configuration matches, libcurl will reuse the existing socket and authentication context instead of opening a new connection.

The bug​

Two SSH options — the public and private key file selections used for SSH public‑key authentication — were not compared when libcurl judged connections to be equivalent. When those fields differ between two transfers but were not part of the equivalence check, libcurl could mistakenly reuse the prior SSH session even though the new transfer had different authentication parameters. In short: a transfer that should open a new, separately authenticated SSH channel might instead ride an already‑authenticated channel.

Consequences​

• Credential or session material tied to one authentication context could be sent over a connection authenticated for a different user or key.
• In multi‑tenant or multi‑user applications that share a long‑lived libcurl handle or process, one user’s credentials could be indirectly reused for another user’s transfer.
• The severity depends on how libcurl is used inside the application (single‑user CLI tools vs. multi‑user daemons), and on whether an attacker can influence the sequence and options used by transfers.

Multiple distributors and vulnerability databases categorized the bug as moderate/medium severity and noted that it affects libcurl versions prior to 8.0.0. Distributors published fixes in their respective packaged curl/libcurl builds shortly after the upstream patch.

---

Microsoft’s MSRC wording: what they said and why it matters​

Microsoft’s public MSRC vulnerability entries often follow a concise pattern: when Microsoft has completed an inventory for a given upstream open‑source component in a particular product family (for example, Azure Linux images), they will publish a short line such as “Azure Linux includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected by this vulnerability.” That statement is valuable because it tells customers which Microsoft product family has been inspected and attested to include the affected upstream component.
However, the wording is deliberately scoped: it confirms which Microsoft product has been mapped to the vulnerable upstream code, and it commits Microsoft to update the CVE/VEX mapping if furts are found to include that code. It is not an assertion that no other Microsoft product can or does carry the same library. Treat Microsoft’s attestation as an authoritative positive signal (this product is affected) — not as a universal negative signal (no other product is affected).
Microsoft has also signaled a commitment to machine‑readable attestations (CSAF/VEX) to improve transparency; customers can rely on those attestations as the company expands inventory coverage. That said, until Microsoft updates an MSRC CVE entry to list additional Microsoft carriers, defenders should assume un‑attested Microsoft artifacts remain unverified rather than proven safe.

---

Is Azure Linux the only Microsoft product that includes libcurl and could be affected?​

Short answer: No — Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product Microsoft has publicly attested (for this vulnerability) to include the implicated open‑source library as of the advisory, but Microsoft has not stated that other Microsoft products do not contain libcurl. In practice, many Microsoft artifacts can and do include libcurl components — either as part of the OS image, shipped command‑line utilities, bundled vendor components, or third‑party products Microsoft distributes.
Evidence and context:

• Microsoft’s wording is product‑scoped and expl product family that has been inspected; it also commits to update the record if additional Microsoft products are identified. That product‑scoped attestation pattern has appeared repeatedly; it’s accurate and operationally useful, but it is not an exclusive claim.
• Microsoft’s Windows OS ships a curl binary in modern releases (Windows 10 and later include a system curl.exe). Those Windows curl builds are produced by Microsoft and often lag upstream releases for integration and testing reasons; historically, Microsoft has had to update the system curl binary in Windows Update cycles after upstream patches are released. That means Windows and Windows‑hosted products are plausible carriers of libcurl code and should be inventoried for each libcurl CVE.
• Beyond the OS‑supplied curl, many Microsoft distributed artifacts may bundle their own copies of libcurl: container images, CLI tools, marketplace images, agents and telemetry/updater services, SDKs, and vendor packages shipped through Microsoft channels. These artifacts may carry their own libcurl builds or link to distribution packages that include libcurl. Given this diversity, the mere fact that Azure Linux was attested does not exclude the possibility of other Microsoft artifacts carrying the same vulnerable library.

Put plainly: Azure Linux is a confirmed Microsoft carrier for the CVE because Microsoft inspected it; other Microsoft products might include libcurl (and might be affected) — but they either haven’t been inspected or Microsoft hasn’t published attestations for them yet.

---

Cross‑checking the record: independent confirmations​

Multiple independent vulnerability databases and vendors recorded the libcurl SSH reuse issue and the affected versions (pre‑v8.0.0), and multiple Linux distributions published patched packages. Authoritative sources include the NVD (US NIST), major distribution advisories (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Amazon Linux), and curl’s own advisory pages. Those sources agree on the core facts: the flaw existed in libcurl’s connection reuse logic, it was fixed in libcurl 8.0.0, and distributors produced patched packages for their respective releases.
That cross‑validation is important for defenders because vendor attestations — including Microsoft’s Azure Linux statement — only tell you which product has been inspected. Distributors’ advisories and the NVD give you the technical picture and the required patched versions.

---

Practical exposure analysis: where to look and why​

To decide whether your Microsoft estate is potentially affected beyond Azure Linux, prioritize inventory activities that answer two questions for each artifact: (1) does the artifact ship or bundle libcurl (or a curl binary), and (2) if so, which libcurl version and build flags are present?
Key artifacts to scan:

• Azure Linux and any Microsoft‑published Linux images (these are already attested in the MSRC advisory in question).
• Windows OS images and the system curl binary (check C:\Windows\System32\curl.exe and run curl --version to inspect the build). Since Microsoft maintains its own Windows curl builds, treat the presence of curl.exe as an indication that libcurl code exists on the device and verify the version.
• Microsoft‑published container images and Marketplace items that may bundle distribution packages — inspect their package lists or SBOMs.
• Microsoft agents, updaters, and service runners (update agents are frequent carriers of network stacks; some third‑party and first‑party agents link libcurl directly).
• Developer SDKs, runtime redistributables, and packaged applications that ship their own native libraries (Git for Windows is an example of an external bundle that includes curl/libcurl).
• Any in‑house or vendor applications running in your environment that embed libcurl or ship a native curl binary.

Inventory methods:

• Use vendor SBOMs / CSAF / VEX where available. Microsoft has been publishing machine‑readable attestations and CSRF/VEX outputs as they roll out product coverage; these reduce manual work when available.
• For Windows endpoints, run an automated agent script that checks for curl.exe presence and queries curl --version; record the results centrally.
• For Linux endpoints, use package managers (dpkg, rpm) and container inspection to find installed curl/libcurl package versions.
• Search build and CI systems for libcurl linkage in binary builds (ldd / objdump / dependency scanners), especially for native code components.

---

Detection: indicators and practical checks​

• Check libcurl / curl versions:
• On Linux, query the package manager (apt, rpm that curl/libcurl is upgraded to a patched release (distributors published fixes after the upstream patch).
• On Windows, run curl --version on representative endpoints to determine the system curl build and version.
• Identify linked binaries:
• On Linux servers and containers, run ldd / readelf to find binaries that link to libcurl.
• On Windows, search for curl.exe in system paths and scan deployed product folders for bundled curl or libcurl DLLs.
• Inspect SBOMs and vendor attestations:
• Pull SBOMs for images and products where available.
• Consult Microsoft’s machine‑readable VEX attestations (where published) to see which Microsoft products have been inventoried for the CVE. Microsoft committed to publishing CSAF/VEX outputs progressively; treat them as authoritative when present for a given product.
• Runtime telemetry:
• If possible, instrument applications that use libcurl to log connection reuse events or to detect when the SSH options change between transfers but the underlying socket is reused. This is a defensive hardening step rather than an off‑the‑shelf indicator.

---

Remediation and mitigation guidance​

Priority actions for operators and developers:

• Patch first
• Upgrade libcurl or the distributor’s curl package to a patched release that includes the fix (upstream fix in curl/libcurl v8.0.0; distribution vendors released backports and updated packages). Distribution advisories (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Red Hat, Amazon Linux) show the patched package versions; apply vendor patches promptly.
• Short‑term mitigations (when immediate upgrade isn’t possible)
• Avoid configurations that rely on SSH connection reuse in shared processes. Prefer one curl handle per authentication context or explicitly reinitialize handles between transfers.
• Isolate user contexts: do not run multi‑tenant transfers in a single long‑lived process that may reuse handles across users.
• Where feasible, disable SSH‑based transports (SFTP/SCP) in vulnerable deployments until upgrades are applied.
• Developer fixes
• Ensure applications do not reuse a single CURL handle or multi interface across transfers that intentionally change authentication parameters.
• Add application‑level checks: when an SSH option changes for a new transfer, explicitly close the prior connection or create a fresh handle.
• Windows‑specific guidance
• Because Windows ships a system curl.exe and some applications bundle their own curl builds, inventory both system and bundled copies. Microsoft typically patches the system curl in Windows Update cycles; track Microsoft advisories and apply OS updates when available. For third‑party bundled curl instances, work with vendors to obtain patched binaries or rebuild with patched libcurl.
• Container and image hygiene
• Rebuild container images with patched distributions or with an updated curl package. Update Marketplace images or any images you control that are built from base images containing vulnerable libcurl.

---

Realistic attacker model and risk assessment​

• Exploitability is environment‑dependent. The upstream defect is a logic error in connection reuse; it does not itself magically elevate privilege. Instead, it makes it possible for credentials or session contexts to be reused in ways a caller did not intend.
• The vulnerability is most consequential in multi‑user or shared‑context services where one principal can trigger transfers that might be mishandled by a reused connection.
• For single‑user CLI use cases or short‑lived scripts that do not reuse handles, the practical exploitation surface is small. For persistent services, containerized multi‑tenant applications, or automated agents that handle many distinct credentials within the same process, exposure and impact increase.
• Scanners and public databases reported this bug as medium severity, with some variance in CVSS entries; independent vendors placed the risk in context and called for prompt patching.

Because of the environment sensitivity, defenders should prioritize based on exposure: catalog services that use libcurl for SSH‑based transfers and escalate service owners to patch or.

---

Why Microsoft’s attestation practice is helpful — and why you still must scan your estate​

Microsoft’s short, product‑scoped attestation delivers fast, actionable information: it tells Azure Linux customers, “Yes — we found the implicated open‑source component in our Azure Linux images and you should consider these images potentially affected.” That reduces time to action for a large customer base. But supply‑chain security is a distributed problem. Microsoft ships many artifacts, and external vendors and applications may also bundle libcurl.
Consequently:

• Use Microsoft’s attestation as a starting point — treat it as proof that at least one Microsoft product contains the vulnerable component.
• Don’t stop there. Inventory your own estate and any other Microsoft artifacts you run (Windows hosts, managed images, Marketplace images, containers, in‑house and vendor applications).
• Ask vendors and product owners for SBOMs and update timelines if they ship native libraries. Microsoft is expanding machine‑readable VEX/CSAF coverage, which should simplify this work over time, but at the time an MSRC advisory is published the attestation will often be partial until the company completes its mapping.

---

Checklist: What defenders should do now​

• Inventory
• Find every instance of curl.exe and libcurl on Windows and Linux hosts.
• Query containers and marketplace images for libcurl or curl packages.
• Prioritize
• Identify long‑running services that perform SSH/SFTP transfers and those that handle multiple credentials or tenants.
• Patch
• Apply vendor patches or update packages to the patched libcurl/curl versions (upstream fix at v8.0.0; distribution patches backported in vendor packages).
• Mitigate
• Where patch deployment is delayed, enforce process isolation and avoid using handle reuse patterns that change authentd‑lifecycle.
• Validate
• Rebuild and redeploy container images and re‑verify the absence of the vulnerable libcurl build.
• Monitor
• Add telemetry to detect unusual connection reuse behavior or mismatches in configured authentication parameters.

---

Final analysis and recommendations​

Microsoft’s MSRC entry for CVE‑2023‑27538 — and similar entries for other libcurl defects — performs an important transparency role: it confirms a definitive inventory check result for the Azure Linux product family. That confirmation is actionable for Azure Linux customers and strengthens the supply‑chain posture for those images. But this attestation is not an argument that Azure Linux is the only Microsoft product that could include libcurl. Windows itself ships curl binaries, many Microsoft‑distributed artifacts bundle native libraries, and third‑party applications shipped through Microsoft channels may embed their own libcurl copies. All of those are plausible carriers and require a targeted inventory to verify.
What to take away:

• Treat the MSRC line as a positive signal (this product has the vulnerable component); do not treat it as exhaustive coverage of all Microsoft products.
• Use authoritative vulnerability trackers and distribution advisories (NVD, vendor security notices, distributor advisories) to confirm the affected versions and the fixed releases, then apply the patches from your vendor or rebuild with patched libraries.
• If you operate a hybrid environment (Windows + Linux) or run containerized workloads, invest in SBOM collection, automated binary scanning, and per‑artifact attestations (CSAF/VEX). Those traces are the only reliable way to demonstrate whether a specific Microsoft artifact beyond Azure Linux is a carrier.

The practical next step for any organization that runs Microsoft products is straightforward: inventory now, patch quickly, and treat Microsoft’s attestation as an important signal — not the final word.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center