Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2019-17343
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 4.11.x allowing x86 PV guest OS users to cause a denial of service or gain privileges by leveraging incorrect use of the HVM physmap concept for PV domains.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a vulnerability in the Xen hypervisor (through version 4.11.x) where the HVM physmap concept is incorrectly applied to PV (paravirtualized) domains. The physmap is a data structure that maps machine memory to pseudo-physical memory, and when misused for PV guests, it can allow those guests to cause denial of service or escalate privileges on the host system.
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= 10.0<= 4.11.2CVSS 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 the Xen hypervisor versionRun 'xl version' or 'xm version' to display the installed Xen version. On Debian systems, also check '/usr/lib/xen-*/bin/xen' or review the package version via 'dpkg -l | grep xen-hypervisor'.Affected if The installed Xen version is 4.11.2 or any earlier version in the 4.11.x line, or any version below 4.12.0.
-
Determine if PV guests are configured or runningExecute 'xl list' or 'xm list' to list all guest domains. Look for domains where the 'type' field indicates 'pv' (paravirtualized) rather than 'hvm'.Affected if Any PV-type guests are active on the system, as the vulnerability specifically stems from incorrect application of HVM physmap handling to PV domains.
-
Check for the Xen package version on DebianOn Debian 9 or 10 systems running Xen, run 'dpkg -l | grep -i xen-hypervisor' to list installed Xen hypervisor packages and their exact version numbers.Affected if The Debian-installed Xen package version matches the vulnerable range (any version prior to the fix in 4.12).
The system is affected if it runs Xen version 4.11.2 or earlier AND has any PV (paravirtualized) guest domains active, since the flaw exploits incorrect physmap handling for PV guests.
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 Xen to version 4.12 or later, which contains the fix for this physmap handling issue. Alternatively, ensure PV guest workloads are isolated and monitor for anomalous hypervisor behavior.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17343 — 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-2019-17343 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