CVE-2012-6035
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 · uneditedThe do_tmem_destroy_pool function in the Transcendent Memory (TMEM) in Xen 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 does not properly validate pool ids, which allows local guest OS users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption and host crash) or execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. NOTE: this issue was originally published as part of CVE-2012-3497, which was too general; CVE-2012-3497 has been SPLIT into this ID and others.
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 confidenceThe do_tmem_destroy_pool function in Xen 4.0-4.2's Transcendent Memory (TMEM) subsystem does not properly validate pool IDs, allowing a local guest OS user to trigger memory corruption, cause host denial of service, or potentially execute arbitrary code with hypervisor privileges.
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= 4.0.0= 4.1.0= 4.2.0CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/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 Xen hypervisor versionRun 'xm info' or 'xl info' and look for the xen_version field, or check /sys/hypervisor/version/ if accessible from dom0Affected if Version is exactly 4.0.0, 4.1.0, or 4.2.0 (not patched versions like 4.0.4+, 4.1.4+, 4.2.1+)
-
Determine if TMEM is enabled in the hypervisorCheck Xen boot parameters in /boot/grub/menu.lst or /boot/grub2/grub.cfg for 'tmem' or 'xen_tmem' parameters, or run 'xl info' and look for tmem capabilitiesAffected if TMEM is listed as available or enabled in the hypervisor configuration
-
Verify TMEM kernel module statusRun 'lsmod | grep tmem' in dom0 to check if the tmem kernel module is loaded, or check /sys/module/tmem/ existsAffected if The tmem module is loaded into the running kernel
-
Check for TMEM pool configurationsExamine /proc/xen/tmem/ or run 'xl tmems-list' if available to list active TMEM poolsAffected if Any TMEM pools are configured or visible in the system
A system is affected if it runs Xen version 4.0.0, 4.1.0, or 4.2.0 AND has TMEM functionality enabled or loaded, since the vulnerability requires the TMEM subsystem to be active for exploitation.
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 Xen to version 4.0.4+, 4.1.4+, 4.2.1+ or later which contain the fix for proper pool ID validation. If TMEM is not required, it may be disabled as a temporary workaround.
- 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-2012-6035 — 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-2012-6035 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