FreeBSDOperating system

CVE-2023-3494

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2023-08-01
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
90/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Zero-click

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 · unedited
The fwctl driver implements a state machine which is executed when a bhyve guest accesses certain x86 I/O ports. The interface lets the guest copy a string into a buffer resident in the bhyve process' memory. A bug in the state machine implementation can result in a buffer overflowing when copying this string. Malicious, privileged software running in a guest VM can exploit the buffer overflow to achieve code execution on the host in the bhyve userspace process, which typically runs as root, mitigated by the capabilities assigned through the Capsicum sandbox available to the bhyve process.

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 confidence

Buffer overflow vulnerability in the fwctl driver state machine of the bhyve hypervisor. When a guest VM accesses certain x86 I/O ports, the driver copies a guest-supplied string into a buffer without proper bounds checking, allowing a malicious privileged guest to overflow the buffer and achieve code execution in the bhyve process (typically running as root). The Capsicum sandbox provides some mitigation.

MitigationApply vendor patches for this vulnerability in bhyve/FreeBSD. If patches are unavailable, consider restricting VM privileges, using seccomp or additional sandboxing around bhyve processes, or upgrading to a patched FreeBSD version.

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
FreeBSDOperating system
Affected:= 13.1= 13.2

CVSS 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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check FreeBSD version
    Run 'freebsd-version' or 'uname -r' to determine the installed FreeBSD version
    Affected if Version is 13.1 or 13.2 (both affected versions)
  2. Verify bhyve installation
    Run 'which bhyve' or check if bhyve binaries exist in /usr/sbin/bhyve
    Affected if bhyve is installed and available on the system
  3. Identify running bhyve processes
    Run 'ps aux | grep bhyve' or check for active VM processes
    Affected if bhyve VMs are currently running (exploitation requires a guest VM with access to the vulnerable x86 I/O ports)
  4. Check for privileged guest configurations
    Examine VM configuration files for settings that grant guests elevated privileges or direct I/O port access (such as '-w' flag or similar privilege escalation options in bhyve command lines)
    Affected if Guest VMs are configured with privileged access that allows manipulation of x86 I/O ports
  5. Verify Capsicum sandbox status
    Review bhyve process execution context - check if Capsicum sandbox is in use via process audit or by examining how bhyve was launched
    Affected if Capsicum sandbox is NOT enabled (lack of sandboxing increases exploitability but does not affect whether the vulnerability exists)

You are affected if you are running FreeBSD 13.1 or 13.2 with bhyve and have active guest VMs that have privileged access to x86 I/O ports used by the fwctl driver.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply vendor patches for this vulnerability in bhyve/FreeBSD. If patches are unavailable, consider restricting VM privileges, using seccomp or additional sandboxing around bhyve processes, or upgrading to a patched FreeBSD version.

Fix this in FreeBSD Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,480
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,568.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3494 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-3494 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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