MOKSHA-2026-0062 (moksha-2026-0062)

Vulnerability from moksha – Published: 2026-04-24 06:00 – Updated:
VLAI
Title
Rate Limit Removal via kbps=0 in VIF.qos_algorithm_params
Summary
A vm-admin in XAPI-based hypervisors (XenServer, XCP-ng) can silently disable VIF rate limiting by setting kbps=0 in VIF.qos_algorithm_params. XAPI accepts the zero value without validation. xenopsd correctly rejects it at plug time (bytes_per_interval fails the >0L check), but the rejection is invisible - only a debug-level log is emitted. The XAPI database shows rate limiting as configured while xenstore has no rate enforced, creating a false positive for administrators and monitoring tools.
CWE
  • CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
References
Impacted products
Credits
Jakob Wolffhechel, Moksha
Show details on NVD website

{
  "containers": {
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "XenServer",
          "vendor": "Cloud Software Group",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "all",
              "versionType": "custom"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "product": "XCP-ng",
          "vendor": "Vates",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "all",
              "versionType": "custom"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Jakob Wolffhechel, Moksha"
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "A vm-admin in XAPI-based hypervisors (XenServer, XCP-ng) can silently disable VIF rate limiting by setting kbps=0 in VIF.qos_algorithm_params. XAPI accepts the zero value without validation. xenopsd correctly rejects it at plug time (bytes_per_interval fails the \u003e0L check), but the rejection is invisible - only a debug-level log is emitted. The XAPI database shows rate limiting as configured while xenstore has no rate enforced, creating a false positive for administrators and monitoring tools."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV3_1": {
            "baseScore": 5.3,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "format": "CVSS"
        },
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "baseScore": 5.3,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
            "version": "4.0"
          },
          "format": "CVSS"
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-20",
              "description": "Improper Input Validation",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-04-24T06:00:00Z",
        "orgId": "moksha.dk",
        "shortName": "Moksha"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://cna.moksha.dk/MOKSHA-2026-0062"
        }
      ],
      "title": "Rate Limit Removal via kbps=0 in VIF.qos_algorithm_params"
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "alternateIds": [
      "GCVE-117-2026-0062"
    ],
    "assignerOrgId": "moksha.dk",
    "cveId": "MOKSHA-2026-0062",
    "datePublished": "2026-04-24T06:00:00Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED",
    "x_moksha_note": "Self-issued advisory. MOKSHA-2026-NNNN is not a MITRE CVE ID. Schema follows CVE JSON 5.1 for tooling compatibility. alternateIds contains GCVE cross-references (GNA #117) and will also carry MITRE CVE IDs if assigned."
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…