CVE-2021-28699
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 · uneditedinadequate grant-v2 status frames array bounds check The v2 grant table interface separates grant attributes from grant status. That is, when operating in this mode, a guest has two tables. As a result, guests also need to be able to retrieve the addresses that the new status tracking table can be accessed through. For 32-bit guests on x86, translation of requests has to occur because the interface structure layouts commonly differ between 32- and 64-bit. The translation of the request to obtain the frame numbers of the grant status table involves translating the resulting array of frame numbers. Since the space used to carry out the translation is limited, the translation layer tells the core function the capacity of the array within translation space. Unfortunately the core function then only enforces array bounds to be below 8 times the specified value, and would write past the available space if enough frame numbers needed storing.
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's v2 grant table interface. When 32-bit guests on x86 request the frame numbers of the grant status table, translation of the request must occur due to differing interface structure layouts. The bounds check in the core function only enforces array bounds below 8 times the specified capacity value, allowing writes past the available translation space.
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= 33= 34= 35= 11.0>= 4.10.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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 the Xen hypervisor versionRun 'xl version' or 'xm version' or check the xen-utils-common package version with 'rpm -q xen' (Fedora) or 'dpkg -l xen' (Debian)Affected if The installed Xen version is 4.10.0 or higher
-
Confirm the host is running Xen hypervisorCheck for the presence of Xen kernel or hypervisor with 'uname -a' (look for 'xen' in the kernel name) or check for xen daemon processes with 'ps aux | grep xen'Affected if The system is not running Xen hypervisor (this CVE does not apply)
-
Identify active guest domainsList running domains with 'xl list' or 'xm list' and note the bit-width of each guestAffected if There are 32-bit (i386/i686) guest domains running on this Xen host
-
Determine if grant table v2 interface is in useInspect guest configuration files in /etc/xen/ for the grant_table parameter, or check Xen logs for gnttab-related entries with 'xl dmesg | grep -i grant'Affected if Guests are configured to use grant table v2 (grant_table='v2' in config) or v2 is the default for 32-bit guests on this Xen version
You are likely affected if this is a Xen host version 4.10.0 or higher running 32-bit guests with the v2 grant table interface active.
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.
dbcve · scopedThis is a hypervisor-level vulnerability requiring a Xen security patch. Hosts should restrict untrusted guests and apply vendor patches once available.
Xen 4.14.2 or later (or latest available security patch for your distribution)
- 1. Identify the current Xen hypervisor version running on the system using 'xl version' or 'xm version'
- 2. Check for available Xen security updates from your distribution (Fedora, Debian, or Xen upstream)
- 3. For Fedora systems: run 'dnf update xen' to apply available security patches
- 4. For Debian systems: run 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade xen*' to apply available security patches
- 5. For upstream Xen: upgrade to Xen 4.14.2 or later which contains the fix for this vulnerability
- 6. After applying updates, reboot the host to load the updated hypervisor
- 7. Verify the new Xen version is running post-reboot with 'xl version'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-28699 — 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-2021-28699 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