Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2018-10471
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Xen through 4.10.x allowing x86 PV guest OS users to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds zero write and hypervisor crash) via unexpected INT 80 processing, because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2017-5754.
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 vulnerability in the Xen hypervisor (through 4.10.x) where x86 PV (paravirtualized) guest users can cause a denial of service by triggering an out-of-bounds zero write, crashing the hypervisor. The vulnerability stems from incorrect handling of INT 80 (Linux system call interface) processing and represents a flawed fix for CVE-2017-5754 (Spectre/Meltdown variant 1).
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0<= 4.10.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 `xl version` or `xm version` on the hypervisor host to obtain the installed Xen version numberAffected if Version is 4.10.1 or lower (any 4.10.x through 4.10.1)
-
List all running virtual machinesRun `xl list` or `xm list` to enumerate all guest domains currently running on the hypervisorAffected if Any guest domains are listed as running
-
Identify PV guest typesExamine the output from `xl list` - look for guests without the 'HVM' flag, which indicates paravirtualized (PV) guests. Alternatively, run `xl list -l` and check the 'builder' field for 'hvm' versus 'pv'Affected if Any guest is configured as x86 paravirtualized (PV) rather than HVM (hardware virtual machine)
-
Confirm x86 architecture for PV guestsFor each identified PV guest, check the guest configuration via `xl list -l <guest_name>` and verify the 'arch' or 'os' field shows x86 or i686 architectureAffected if Any PV guest runs on x86 (i386/i686) architecture
You are affected if your hypervisor runs Xen version 4.10.1 or lower AND hosts at least one x86 paravirtualized (PV) guest, as the vulnerability only triggers through PV guest code interacting with INT 80 handling.
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 a version beyond 4.10.x that contains the corrected fix for proper INT 80 bounds handling in PV guests, or apply vendor-provided patches if available for supported versions.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2018-10471 — 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-2018-10471 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