CVE-2021-1059
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 · uneditedNVIDIA vGPU manager contains a vulnerability in the vGPU plugin, in which an input index is not validated, which may lead to integer overflow, which in turn may cause tampering of data, information disclosure, or denial of service. This affects vGPU version 8.x (prior to 8.6) and version 11.0 (prior to 11.3).
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 confidenceThe NVIDIA vGPU manager's vGPU plugin fails to validate an input index, allowing an untrusted user to provide an out-of-bounds index value. This unvalidated input can trigger an integer overflow, which can lead to tampering of data stored in memory, information disclosure from memory contents, or denial of service via crash or instability.
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>= 8.0, < 8.6>= 11.0, < 11.3CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Verify NVIDIA vGPU Manager is installedOn the hypervisor host, list installed packages using the package manager: for RHEL/CentOS run 'rpm -qa | grep -i nvidia-vgpu', for Debian/Ubuntu run 'dpkg -l | grep -i nvidia-vgpu', or check the hypervisor management interface for vGPU Manager componentsAffected if No NVIDIA vGPU Manager packages are found, indicating the product is not present
-
Identify the installed vGPU Manager versionRun 'rpm -qi <nvidia-vgpu-package>' or 'dpkg -s <nvidia-vgpu-package>' to display the package version information, or view it through the hypervisor management consoleAffected if The installed version is 8.0 through 8.5.x (any version >= 8.0 but < 8.6), or 11.0 through 11.2.x (any version >= 11.0 but < 11.3)
-
Confirm vGPU functionality is enabledCheck the hypervisor configuration for active vGPU profiles: in VMware, review VM settings for vGPU device assignments; in Citrix XenServer, run 'xe vgpu-type-list' and check VM vGPU configurations; in KVM/libvirt, examine domain XML for mdev or vGPU device passthrough configurationAffected if vGPU plugin is actively configured and VMs are using vGPU profiles, exposing the vulnerable code path
The environment is affected if NVIDIA vGPU Manager is installed with version 8.0 <= x < 8.6 or 11.0 <= x < 11.3 AND vGPU functionality is enabled on the hypervisor.
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 data8.611.3
Apply the vendor patch by upgrading NVIDIA vGPU manager to version 8.6 or later (for 8.x branches) or version 11.3 or later (for 11.x branches). Coordinate maintenance windows to migrate guest VMs off affected hosts before applying the update.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-1059 — 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-2021-1059 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