Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.29% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2021
CVE-2021-28692High confidence
inappropriate x86 IOMMU timeout detection / handling IOMMUs process commands issued to them in parallel with the operation of the CPU(s) issuing such commands
Xen · xen
7.1HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Mitigation availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 3 Aug 2024
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Xen xen and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | xen | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | xen | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | xen | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | xen | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | xen | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
inappropriate x86 IOMMU timeout detection / handling IOMMUs process commands issued to them in parallel with the operation of the CPU(s) issuing such commands. In the current implementation in Xen, asynchronous notification of the completion of such commands is not used. Instead, the issuing CPU spin-waits for the completion of the most recently issued command(s). Some of these waiting loops try to apply a timeout to fail overly-slow commands. The course of action upon a perceived timeout actually being detected is inappropriate: - on Intel hardware guests which did not originally cause the timeout may be marked as crashed, - on AMD hardware higher layer callers would not be notified of the issue, making them continue as if the IOMMU operation succeeded.
What
inappropriate x86 IOMMU timeout detection / handling IOMMUs process commands issued to them in parallel with the operation of the CPU(s) issuing such commands. In the current implementation in Xen, asynchronous notification of the completion of such commands is not used. Instead, the issuing CPU spin-waits for the completion of the most recently issued command(s). Some of these waiting loops try to apply a timeout to fail overly-slow commands. The course of action upon a perceived timeout actually being detected is inappropriate: - on Intel hardware guests which did not originally cause the timeout may be marked as crashed, - on AMD hardware higher layer callers would not be notified of the issue, making them continue as if the IOMMU operation succeeded.
Why
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
What
inappropriate x86 IOMMU timeout detection / handling IOMMUs process commands issued to them in parallel with the operation of the CPU(s) issuing such commands. In the current implementation in Xen, asynchronous notification of the completion of such commands is not used. Instead, the issuing CPU spin-waits for the completion of the most recently issued command(s). Some of these waiting loops try to apply a timeout to fail overly-slow commands. The course of action upon a perceived timeout actually being detected is inappropriate: - on Intel hardware guests which did not originally cause the timeout may be marked as crashed, - on AMD hardware higher layer callers would not be notified of the issue, making them continue as if the IOMMU operation succeeded.
Why
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Privilege Management → disrupt the affected service
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-269 ↗
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management. The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Mitigation available
- Action
- Apply the mitigation in the linked authoritative guidance while planning the vendor's permanent fix.
- Workaround
- A mitigation or workaround reference is available from the source linked below; validate it against the affected product and version.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 30 Jun 2021 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 21:47 UTC · CWE-269 · Improper Privilege Management
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2021-15349
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Mitigation reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.