CVE-2010-0297
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedBuffer overflow in the usb_host_handle_control function in the USB passthrough handling implementation in usb-linux.c in QEMU before 0.11.1 allows guest OS users to cause a denial of service (guest OS crash or hang) or possibly execute arbitrary code on the host OS via a crafted USB packet.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in QEMU's USB passthrough handling (usb_host_handle_control function in usb-linux.c) allows a malicious guest to send crafted USB packets that can overflow a buffer, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution on the host system or causing guest/host denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 0.11.0= 0.1.0= 0.1.1= 0.1.2= 0.1.3= 0.1.4= 0.1.5= 0.1.6= 0.2.0= 0.3.0= 0.4.0= 0.4.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify QEMU versionRun 'qemu-system-x86_64 --version' or 'qemu --version' to get the installed QEMU version numberAffected if The version is 0.11.0 or earlier, or matches one of these specific versions: 0.1.0, 0.1.1, 0.1.2, 0.1.3, 0.1.4, 0.1.5, 0.1.6, 0.2.0, 0.3.0, 0.4.0, or 0.4.1
-
Check USB passthrough configurationReview the QEMU command line or VM configuration file for USB device passthrough flags such as '-usb', '-device usb-host', or similar USB host device assignmentsAffected if USB passthrough is enabled and host USB devices are being passed to the guest
-
Verify USB host device handling is activeExamine running QEMU processes using 'ps aux' or check VM configuration for active USB device mappings from host to guestAffected if The guest has active USB devices that are being passed through from the host system
-
Confirm USB control endpoint handlingCheck if the guest operating system has loaded or can load USB drivers and is communicating with passed-through USB devicesAffected if The guest can send USB control requests to host-connected USB devices through the passthrough interface
You are affected if your QEMU version is 0.11.0 or earlier (or matches any of the specific affected versions 0.1.0-0.4.1) AND you have USB passthrough enabled with active USB devices being used by the guest.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade QEMU to version 0.11.1 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider disabling USB passthrough to untrusted guests until the patch can be applied.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0297 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-0297 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data