CVE-2013-6375
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 4.2.x and 4.3.x, when using Intel VT-d for PCI passthrough, does not properly flush the TLB after clearing a present translation table entry, which allows local guest administrators to cause a denial of service or gain privileges via unspecified vectors related to an "inverted boolean parameter."
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 confidenceThis is a hypervisor vulnerability in Xen 4.2.x and 4.3.x where Intel VT-d PCI passthrough fails to properly flush the TLB after clearing a present translation table entry. The root cause is an inverted boolean parameter causing the TLB flush to be skipped when it should execute. This allows malicious guest administrators to potentially escalate privileges or cause denial of service by manipulating translation table entries.
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= 4.2.1= 4.2.2= 4.2.3= 4.3.0= 4.3.1= 13.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:A/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 installed Xen versionRun 'xl info' or 'xm info' to display Xen hypervisor version information. Look for the 'xen_version' field.Affected if The version shown is 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.0, or 4.3.1
-
Verify Intel VT-d is enabledCheck the hypervisor boot parameters or xl/libvirt configuration for 'intel_iommu=1' or 'iommu=intel' flags. On the host, inspect 'xl dmesg' output for 'Intel VT-d' initialization messages.Affected if Intel VT-d is enabled in the hypervisor configuration and was successfully initialized
-
Confirm PCI passthrough is configuredExamine guest domain configuration files (e.g., xl config files or libvirt XML) for 'pci' devices with 'permissive=false' or examine 'xl pci-list <domain>' output for assigned PCI devices.Affected if One or more guests have PCI devices assigned via VT-d passthrough with the default restrictive permissions
You are affected if your host runs Xen 4.2.1 through 4.3.1, has Intel VT-d enabled, and has at least one guest configured with PCI passthrough devices.
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 4.2.4 or later which contains the fix. If upgrading is not possible, limit which guests have PCI passthrough permissions and monitor for suspicious activity from privileged guest users.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-6375 — 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-2013-6375 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