Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.18% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2025-58146High confidence
XAPI UTF-8 string handling
Xen · XAPI
9.4CriticalCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedCritical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- 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 XAPI 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.
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
There are multiple issues. 1. Updates to the XAPI database sanitise input strings, but try generating the notification using the unsanitised input. This causes the database's event thread to terminate and cease further processing. 2. XAPI's UTF-8 encoder implements v3.0 of the Unicode spec, but XAPI uses libraries which conform to the stricter v3.1 of the Unicode spec. This causes some strings to be accepted as valid UTF-8 by XAPI, but rejected by other libraries in use. Notably, such strings can be entered into the database, after which the database can no longer be loaded. 3. There is no input sanitisation for Map/Set updates on objects in the XAPI database.
What
There are multiple issues. 1. Updates to the XAPI database sanitise input strings, but try generating the notification using the unsanitised input. This causes the database's event thread to terminate and cease further processing. 2. XAPI's UTF-8 encoder implements v3.0 of the Unicode spec, but XAPI uses libraries which conform to the stricter v3.1 of the Unicode spec. This causes some strings to be accepted as valid UTF-8 by XAPI, but rejected by other libraries in use. Notably, such strings can be entered into the database, after which the database can no longer be loaded. 3. There is no input sanitisation for Map/Set updates on objects in the XAPI database.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
There are multiple issues. 1. Updates to the XAPI database sanitise input strings, but try generating the notification using the unsanitised input. This causes the database's event thread to terminate and cease further processing. 2. XAPI's UTF-8 encoder implements v3.0 of the Unicode spec, but XAPI uses libraries which conform to the stricter v3.1 of the Unicode spec. This causes some strings to be accepted as valid UTF-8 by XAPI, but rejected by other libraries in use. Notably, such strings can be entered into the database, after which the database can no longer be loaded. 3. There is no input sanitisation for Map/Set updates on objects in the XAPI database.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
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 Input Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SIHighSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SAHighSubsequent-system availability: 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. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- XAPI: all
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 9 Jul 2026 · Last source change 9 Jul 2026, 16:07 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
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-2025-210446
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- all · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- XAPI: all · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
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.