CVE-2024-3446
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 · uneditedA double free vulnerability was found in QEMU virtio devices (virtio-gpu, virtio-serial-bus, virtio-crypto), where the mem_reentrancy_guard flag insufficiently protects against DMA reentrancy issues. This issue could allow a malicious privileged guest user to crash the QEMU process on the host, resulting in a denial of service or allow arbitrary code execution within the context of the QEMU process on the host.
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 confidenceA double free vulnerability exists in QEMU's virtio devices (virtio-gpu, virtio-serial-bus, virtio-crypto) where the mem_reentrancy_guard flag fails to adequately prevent DMA reentrancy issues. A malicious privileged guest user can trigger the double free, causing QEMU to crash (DoS) or potentially execute arbitrary code within the QEMU process on the host.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed QEMU versionRun `qemu-system-x86_64 --version` or `qemu-img --version` to find the QEMU version installed on the hostAffected if The installed version is older than the patched version (this vulnerability was fixed in QEMU 9.0.0 and backported to various stable branches; compare your version to these releases)
-
Check for active virtio-gpu device usageExamine VM configuration files (XML in libvirt, or QEMU command lines) and running processes for `-device virtio-gpu-pci` or similar virtio-gpu device definitionsAffected if A VM is configured with a virtio-gpu device and the QEMU version is vulnerable
-
Check for active virtio-serial-bus device usageExamine VM configurations and running processes for `-device virtio-serial-pci` or similar virtio-serial device definitionsAffected if A VM is configured with a virtio-serial-bus device and the QEMU version is vulnerable
-
Check for active virtio-crypto device usageExamine VM configurations and running processes for `-device virtio-crypto-pci` or similar virtio-crypto device definitionsAffected if A VM is configured with a virtio-crypto device and the QEMU version is vulnerable
-
Assess guest privilege levelReview VM configuration to determine if guest users have privileged access (root/Administrator) or if the guest is considered untrustedAffected if The guest OS allows privileged users who could trigger the DMA reentrancy flaw
You are affected if your QEMU version is vulnerable AND you run any VM using virtio-gpu, virtio-serial-bus, or virtio-crypto devices with guest users you do not fully trust.
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 dataApply the QEMU security patch or upgrade to a version where this vulnerability is resolved; until then, minimize trust in guest users and consider network isolation between host and untrusted guests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3446 — 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-2024-3446 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