CVE-2013-4554
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 · uneditedXen 3.0.3 through 4.1.x (possibly 4.1.6.1), 4.2.x (possibly 4.2.3), and 4.3.x (possibly 4.3.1) does not properly prevent access to hypercalls, which allows local guest users to gain privileges via a crafted application running in ring 1 or 2.
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 confidenceXen hypervisor versions 3.0.3 through 4.1.x, 4.2.x, and 4.3.x contain a flaw in hypercall access control where guest virtual machines running code in ring 1 or 2 (typically considered non-privileged) can invoke hypercalls that should be restricted to ring 0. This allows a local guest user with a crafted application to escalate privileges and potentially escape the guest environment.
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= 3.0.3= 3.0.4= 3.1.3= 3.1.4= 3.2.0= 3.2.1= 3.2.2= 3.2.3= 3.3.0= 3.3.1= 3.3.2= 3.4.0CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:A/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 version` or `xl version` on the host, or check the Xen package version with `rpm -q xen` (RHEL/CentOS) or `dpkg -l xen*` (Debian/Ubuntu)Affected if The version matches 3.0.3 through 4.1.x, 4.2.x, or 4.3.x and is NOT a patched version after 4.3.1
-
Verify hypervisor build dateRun `xm info` or `xl info` and check the 'build_date' or 'xen_version' fields, or examine the xen kernel image with `uname -a` if running Xen as dom0Affected if The build date corresponds to an unpatched release prior to the CVE fix date (late 2013)
-
Confirm guest VM configurationList all guest domains with `xl list` or `xm list` and check for any HVM or PV guests that may execute code in ring 1 or ring 2 (non-privileged modes)Affected if Any guest VMs are running on the affected Xen version - the vulnerability can be triggered from within any guest
-
Check for security patchesQuery the package manager for installed Xen security updates, for example `yum list installed | grep xen` or review the changelog with `rpm -q --changelog xen | head -50`Affected if No security patches for CVE-2013-4554 are installed and the base version remains in the vulnerable range
A system is affected if it runs Xen hypervisor versions 3.0.3 through 4.3.x without the CVE-2013-4554 patch applied.
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 dataApply Xen security patches or upgrade to a patched version (post-4.3.1) that properly enforces hypercall access restrictions based on privilege ring levels.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4554 — 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-2013-4554 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