Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2024-21961

MEDIUM · 6.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-02-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
66/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
Improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer in PCIe® Link could allow an attacker with access to a guest virtual machine to potentially perform a denial of service attack against the host resulting in loss of availability.

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

Improper memory buffer boundary checking in the PCIe Link layer of a virtualization platform allows a guest virtual machine attacker to trigger buffer overflow operations, potentially causing a denial of service on the host system.

MitigationApply vendor-supplied security patches for the hypervisor PCIe subsystem; consider VM isolation or access restrictions until patching is complete.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

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
Network
Complexity
High
Privileges
Low
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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. Identify your virtualization platform
    Determine which hypervisor runs on the host system (e.g., VMware ESXi, KVM/QEMU, Xen, Hyper-V). Use commands like 'vmware -v', 'xm info', or check system documentation.
    Affected if The vulnerability exists in the PCIe Link layer of an unspecified virtualization platform - you must first confirm which product is in use.
  2. Determine the hypervisor version
    Run the platform-specific version command (e.g., 'vmware -v' for VMware, 'qemu-system-x86_64 --version' for KVM, or check host system info). Compare this version to vendor security advisories for CVE-2024-21961.
    Affected if If your installed version matches an unpatched version listed in the vendor advisory for this CVE, your hypervisor is potentially vulnerable.
  3. Verify if PCIe device passthrough is enabled
    Check hypervisor configuration for PCIe passthrough settings. For KVM: look for 'iommu' in kernel boot parameters or libvirt XML 'hostdev' entries. For VMware: check for 'passthrough' config in vCenter/ESXi. For Xen: check xl config for 'pci' assignments.
    Affected if The PCIe Link layer vulnerability is exploitable when PCIe devices can be directly assigned to or accessed by guest VMs. If passthrough is enabled and the hypervisor version is unpatched, you are affected.
  4. List any assigned PCIe devices to VMs
    Query the hypervisor for VMs with directly assigned PCIe devices. For KVM: 'virsh dumpxml <vmname>' and look for '<hostdev>' entries with 'type=pci'. For VMware: check VM hardware settings for PCIe passthrough devices.
    Affected if If any VMs have PCIe devices directly assigned and the hypervisor is unpatched, the guest attacker could potentially trigger the buffer overflow in the PCIe Link layer.

Your environment is affected if the virtualization platform is an unpatched version matching the CVE and PCIe device passthrough or direct assignment to VMs is enabled, exposing the PCIe Link layer to guest VM attackers.

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-supplied security patches for the hypervisor PCIe subsystem; consider VM isolation or access restrictions until patching is complete.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-21961 — 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-2024-21961 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