FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2015-7295
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 · uneditedhw/virtio/virtio.c in the Virtual Network Device (virtio-net) support in QEMU, when big or mergeable receive buffers are not supported, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (guest network consumption) via a flood of jumbo frames on the (1) tuntap or (2) macvtap interface.
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 confidenceQEMU's virtio-net implementation in hw/virtio/virtio.c contains a denial of service vulnerability when handling jumbo frames on tuntap or macvtap interfaces. When big or mergeable receive buffers are not supported by the guest, a remote attacker can flood the interface with jumbo frames causing excessive resource consumption in the guest.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 21= 22
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 7.0= 8.0<= 2.4.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check QEMU versionRun 'qemu-system-x86_64 --version' or check installed package with 'rpm -q qemu' / 'dpkg -l qemu'Affected if The installed version is 2.4.1 or earlier (or unknown/unavailable in repositories)
-
Verify virtio-net network device is in useReview the QEMU command line or VM configuration file for '-net' or '-device virtio-net-pci' argumentsAffected if virtio-net-pci device is configured for the VM
-
Confirm network backend is tuntap or macvtapInspect the QEMU command line for 'tap' or 'macvtap' in the network configuration (e.g., '-net tap,ifname=...')Affected if The network backend uses tuntap or macvtap
-
Check for jumbo frame configurationExamine the host-side tap or macvtap interface MTU with 'ip link show' or check the QEMU command line for explicit mtu= settingsAffected if The virtual interface MTU exceeds 1500 bytes (jumbo frames enabled)
A system is affected if it runs QEMU 2.4.1 or earlier with virtio-net using a tuntap or macvtap backend that can receive jumbo frames, especially if the guest lacks big or mergeable receive buffer support.
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 dataUpdate QEMU to a patched version that properly handles jumbo frame buffering in virtio-net, or implement network-level controls to filter oversized frames at the host level.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,568.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-7295 — 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-2015-7295 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