GHSA-842c-7fjj-j8jj
Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessControl 64-bit PV guest on >5TiB host
-
DeliveryCraft malicious guest root page tables
-
ExploitTrigger XPTI PTE copy via directmap
-
ExecutionForce out-of-bounds read into Xen page tables
-
ImpactEscape guest and seize hypervisor control
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Access control enforcement
MITRE ATT&CK
1 technique across 1 tactic: Defense Evasion The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up. |
| Exploitation Conditions | Requires the attacker to already control a 64-bit PV-mode guest on a Xen host AND the host's physical memory must extend beyond the 5 TiB boundary (or 3.5 TiB when built with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y), so that the directmap used to read the guest root page table does not cover all memory; XPTI (the Meltdown mitigation) must be active. Limiting factors that reduce real-world exposure: exploitation is local (AV:L) and demands PV mode rather than the now-default HVM/PVH guests, demands uncommon multi-TiB host memory, and requires the attacker to run privileged code inside a guest (PR:L). These conditions make it inapplicable to typical small- and mid-memory Xen deployments. |
| Impact | Signals are mixed and must be weighed carefully. The CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H, base 8.8) correctly models this as a local, low-privilege attack from within a guest that crosses the scope boundary into the hypervisor - i.e. a guest-to-host escape with full confidentiality, integrity and availability impact, which is the worst class of virtualization bug. However, exploitation probability signals are low: EPSS is only 0.16% (5th percentile), there is no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit code was identified at time of analysis, so this is NOT confirmed as actively exploited. The low EPSS is consistent with the narrow preconditions rather than with low impact - the flaw only manifests when a host carries physical memory beyond the 5 TiB boundary (3.5 TiB with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y) and runs 64-bit PV guests with XPTI engaged, a configuration far rarer than default cloud deployments. No SSVC decision record was provided in the input. Net: a genuinely high-impact isolation failure (treat as high priority for operators of large-memory Xen PV hosts) but not a mass-exploitation emergency; the AV:L requirement and the multi-TiB memory precondition meaningfully bound real-world exposure. The input 'Authentication Bypass' tag conflicts with CWE-284 (improper access control) and the described page-table/memory-isolation nature of the bug - treat that tag as unreliable. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker who already controls a 64-bit PV guest on a Xen host with more than 5 TiB of physical memory (or 3.5 TiB under CONFIG_BIGMEM) crafts guest root page tables so that XPTI's copy routine reads guest PTEs through a directmap that does not cover that high memory. The resulting out-of-bounds access lets the guest influence the Xen-chosen page tables actually loaded by hardware, enabling escape from the guest into the hypervisor (scope change) with full read/write and denial-of-service impact. No public proof-of-concept was identified at time of analysis, so exploitation would currently require independent development. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv2 – Oct 20, 2026
Privilege escalation in the Xen hypervisor's XPTI (Xen Page Table Isolation) implementation can let an attacker who already controls a 64-bit PV guest on a sufficiently large-memory host break isolation between that guest and the hypervisor. The flaw lies in the page-table shadowing logic: XPTI copies guest root page-table entries via the directmap, but a PV guest's directmap does not necessarily cover all physical memory, so hosts with RAM extending past the 5 TiB boundary (3.5 TiB with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y) can cause the hypervisor to operate on entries it cannot correctly read, resulting in scope-changed high confidentiality, integrity and availability impact. Exploitation is local (AV:L/PR:L), requires PV mode rather than the default HVM/PVH guest types, and XPTI must be active; no public exploit code and no confirmed active exploitation (CISA KEV) were identified at time of analysis, and EPSS is low at 0.16% (5th percentile).
Earlier versions of this analysis (1)
A 64-bit PV guest running on an x86 Xen host with physical RAM extending above the 5 TiB boundary (3.5 TiB on CONFIG_BIGMEM=y builds) can break Xen Page Table Isolation (XPTI) and potentially escalate to hypervisor privilege, read data belonging to other guests, or crash the entire host. Disclosed as XSA-516 / CVE-2026-79609, the flaw is assessed as AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H: it requires an attacker who already holds low-privileged code execution inside a 64-bit PV guest (HVM and PVH guests cannot leverage it, Arm hosts are unaffected) plus the unusual huge-memory configuration, and the high attack complexity reflects the delicate page-table conditions needed. Exploitation is not confirmed as active and no public exploit code has been identified at time of analysis; vendor patches are attached to the advisory for the 4.17.x, 4.18.x and 4.19.x branches, and operators can neutralize the issue entirely without patching by refusing to run 64-bit PV guests or by capping hypervisor memory with the mem= command-line option.
RemediationAI
Patch status could not be confirmed from the supplied data, so the Xen advisory XSA-516 (https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-516.html) should be treated as the authoritative source for the fixed hypervisor versions and applied as soon as a release is published; no specific fix version is asserted here because none is present in the input. Where an immediate upgrade is not possible, the most effective compensating control is to eliminate the vulnerable guest type: run workloads as HVM or PVH guests instead of 64-bit PV, which removes the XPTI page-table-copying path entirely, at the cost of requiring PV drivers and possibly guest kernel changes plus a reboot or migration. A second control is to constrain hypervisor memory so no RAM crosses the 5 TiB (or 3.5 TiB with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y) boundary, for example by reducing the domain's memory allocation or by using a non-BIGMEM build, though this caps the scalability of large-memory hosts. Do not disable XPTI as a mitigation: that would re-expose the platform to Meltdown (CVE-2017-5754 / XSA-254) for all PV guests. Finally, treat root inside a PV guest as an untrusted boundary - restrict which tenants receive privileged PV domains and isolate large-memory PV hosts from multi-tenant use - noting this is a containment measure rather than a fix. Side effects to plan for: guest-type migrations require maintenance windows and driver compatibility checks, and memory-boundary workarounds can strand capacity on precisely the large hosts most likely to be affected.
Affected ProductsAI
The Xen hypervisor running XPTI for 64-bit PV guests is affected, specifically deployments where host physical memory extends beyond the 5 TiB address boundary, or beyond 3.5 TiB when Xen is compiled with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y, since that is the condition under which the PV guest directmap used to read the guest root page table fails to cover all memory. Only 64-bit PV guests on such hosts are in scope; HVM and PVH guests, which are the modern default, are not described as exploitable through this path, and hosts whose memory stays below the boundary likewise fall outside the vulnerable configuration. The authoritative product and version matrix is maintained in Xen security advisory XSA-516 (https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-516.html, mirror http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-516.html), with additional discussion on the oss-security list (https://seqlists.org/oss-sec/2026/q4/144 - see the referenced oss-sec posting at https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q4/144) and Xen's security policy page (http://www.xenproject.org/security-policy.html). EUVD entry EUVD-2026-98825 tracks the same issue.
Affects your stack
Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
XPTI is Xen's implementation of the Meltdown mitigation (CVE-2017-5754 / XSA-254) for 64-bit PV guests. Because PV guests manage their own page tables, XPTI must mirror guest-chosen root page-table entries into a Xen-controlled page table that hardware actually uses, and it reads the guest root page table through the hypervisor directmap. The directmap is a linear mapping of physical memory, and for PV guests it is not guaranteed to span the whole machine: when memory extends beyond the 5 TiB address boundary - or 3.5 TiB when the hypervisor is built with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y - portions of the guest root page table can fall outside that mapping. The page-table-copying code therefore ends up handling entries without a valid backing mapping, which is an improper access-control/validation weakness (CWE-284) in a security-critical isolation boundary rather than a classic memory-corruption primitive. The consequence is that the mitigation intended to keep a PV guest from reading hypervisor or other-guest memory can be subverted, yielding the scope-changed (S:C) high C/I/A impact reflected in the CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H vector. Affected configurations are therefore defined jointly by hypervisor geometry (very large memory, optional BIGMEM build), guest type (64-bit PV), and mitigation state (XPTI enabled); HVM/PVH guests and ordinary small- to mid-memory hosts do not meet the prerequisites.
Know when Xen gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Attack originates inside a PV guest (AV:L, PR:L), crosses into the hypervisor (S:C) giving full host compromise (C/I/A:H); memory precondition is a deployment attribute, not attacker complexity, so AC:L.
Primary rating from Vendor (CNA).
CVSS VectorVendor
Lifecycle Timeline
3Description PRE-NVD
Executive ViewAI
A privilege-escalation flaw in the Xen hypervisor's XPTI page-table isolation logic could let a user with ordinary local access inside a paravirtualized (PV) guest break out of that guest and operate at the hypervisor layer that underpins every virtual machine on the host. Exposure is narrow but consequential: it requires PV guests rather than Xen's default HVM/PVH mode, XPTI to be active, and hosts with very large memory (beyond roughly 5 TiB, or 3.5 TiB with CONFIG_BIGMEM enabled), so standardized HVM/PVH estates and smaller hosts are largely unaffected while large-memory virtualization and cloud/VDI platforms should treat it as a priority. No vendor patch or public exploit code was identified at time of analysis, which gives defenders a window to reduce exposure through configuration and guest-type changes rather than patching.
No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis; interim mitigations are configuration-based. Migrate 64-bit PV guests to HVM or PVH mode, which is not affected, and prioritize this on hosts whose RAM exceeds the advisory thresholds (about 5 TiB, or 3.5 TiB with CONFIG_BIGMEM=y). Where PV guests must remain, limit host memory below the threshold through partitioning, restrict and audit local account access inside those guests (the flaw requires only low privileges in the guest), and isolate affected hosts from untrusted tenant workloads. Disabling XPTI removes the vulnerable code path but re-exposes the host to the Meltdown-class attacks XPTI was introduced to mitigate, so it should be considered only as a last resort on non-multi-tenant hosts after a documented risk acceptance. Note that no public exploit code was identified at time of analysis, so these measures are precautionary rather than incident-driven.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.
The x86-64 kernel system-call functionality in Xen 4.1.2 and earlier, as used in Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 and earlier and
The Floppy Disk Controller (FDC) in QEMU, as used in Xen 4.5.x and earlier and KVM, allows local guest users to cause a
A statement in the System Programming Guide of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual (SDM) wa
The AdSanity plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads due to missing file type validation in the 'aj
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.9.x allowing x86 PV guest OS users to cause a denial of service (unbounded recu
An issue (known as XSA-212) was discovered in Xen, with fixes available for 4.8.x, 4.7.x, 4.6.x, 4.5.x, and 4.4.x. Rated
The C+ mode offload emulation in the RTL8139 network card device model in QEMU, as used in Xen 4.5.x and earlier, allows
Xen, when used on a system providing PV backends, allows local guest OS administrators to cause a denial of service (hos
x86 pv: Insufficient care with non-coherent mappings T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text exp
Xen through 4.8.x does not validate memory allocations during certain P2M operations, which allows guest OS users to obt
Xen through 4.8.x mishandles page transfer, which allows guest OS users to obtain privileged host OS access, aka XSA-217
The grant-table feature in Xen through 4.8.x does not ensure sufficient type counts for a GNTMAP_device_map and GNTMAP_h
EUVD-2026-98825
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Exploit-DB