CVE-2019-3813
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 · uneditedSpice, versions 0.5.2 through 0.14.1, are vulnerable to an out-of-bounds read due to an off-by-one error in memslot_get_virt. This may lead to a denial of service, or, in the worst case, code-execution by unauthenticated attackers.
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 confidenceSpice versions 0.5.2 through 0.14.1 contain an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the memslot_get_virt function caused by an off-by-one error. This memory safety flaw can be exploited by unauthenticated remote attackers to potentially achieve code execution, though denial of service is the more likely outcome.
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= 6.0= 7.0= 6.0= 7.0= 7.6= 7.6= 7.6= 6.0= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0= 14.04= 16.04= 18.04= 18.10CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/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 if Spice software is installedLook for packages or services related to Spice on the system, such as spice-server, spice-protocol, or the Spice daemon processAffected if Spice is not installed on the system (not vulnerable)
-
Determine the installed Spice versionQuery the installed Spice package version using the system's package manager (for example: rpm -q, dpkg -l, or apt list) or check the version of the spice-server libraryAffected if The installed version falls within 0.5.2 through 0.14.1 (inclusive)
-
Verify the memslot_get_virt function is in useConfirm that the Spice service is actively running or that applications link against the affected libspice-server libraryAffected if Spice is actively running or linked by virtualization workloads (the vulnerability is only triggerable when this code path is exercised)
-
Check system architecture for virtual machine usageExamine if the host runs QEMU/KVM virtual machines configured to use SPICE for display or peripheral redirectionAffected if QEMU/KVM with SPICE display devices is configured, as this is the primary context where memslot_get_virt is invoked
The environment is affected if Spice is installed and the version is between 0.5.2 and 0.14.1 inclusive, with the Spice service actively handling virtual machine display or redirection workloads.
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 Spice to version 0.14.2 or later, which contains the patch addressing the off-by-one error in memslot_get_virt. If upgrade is not immediately feasible, network-level access controls limiting exposure of the Spice service may reduce exploitability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-3813 — 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-2019-3813 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