CVE-2024-31144: Xapi: Metadata injection attack against backup/restore functionality
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 15/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.21% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
For a brief summary of Xapi terminology, see: https://xapi-project.github.io/xen-api/overview.html#object-model-overview Xapi contains functionality to backup and restore metadata about Virtual Machines and Storage Repositories (SRs). The metadata itself is stored in a Virtual Disk Image (VDI) inside an SR. This is used for two purposes; a general backup of metadata (e.g. to recover from a host failure if the filer is still good), and Portable SRs (e.g. using an external hard drive to move VMs to another host). Metadata is only restored as an explicit administrator action, but occurs in cases where the host has no information about the SR, and must locate the metadata VDI in order to retrieve the metadata. The metadata VDI is located by searching (in UUID alphanumeric order) each VDI, mounting it, and seeing if there is a suitable metadata file present. The first matching VDI is deemed to be the metadata VDI, and is restored from. In the general case, the content of VDIs are controlled by the VM owner, and should not be trusted by the host administrator. A malicious guest can manipulate its disk to appear to be a metadata backup. A guest cannot choose the UUIDs of its VDIs, but a guest with one disk has a 50% chance of sorting ahead of the legitimate metadata backup. A guest with two disks has a 75% chance, etc.
- Published
- Feb 14, 2025
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 11th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-829
Report tools
Action score
15
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 15 / 40 · 3.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Is your version affected? Check itNoroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| xen | xapi | cpe:2.3:o:xen:xapi |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- xen xapi1.249.0 and later · up to 1.249.37 inclusive
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (XEN). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Xen Project Xen
- consult Xen advisory XSA-459unknown
Same product
xen: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-42486Multiple RBAC issues in XAPI37Monitor
- CVE-2026-23562Multiple RBAC issues in XAPI37Monitor
- CVE-2026-23561Multiple RBAC issues in XAPI37Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-29487Dec 15, 2020 · An issue was discovered in Xen XAPI before 2020-12-15.30Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2022-33749Oct 11, 2022 · XAPI open file limit DoS It is possible for an unauthenticated client on the network to cause XAPI to hit its file-descriptor limit.21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2025-58146Jul 9, 2026 · XAPI UTF-8 string handling37Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- XenServerfinder
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-829 · Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control SphereCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Code InclusionCAPEC-175likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Serialized Data External LinkingCAPEC-201likelihood: High · High
- DTD InjectionCAPEC-228Medium
- Local Code InclusionCAPEC-251Medium
- PHP Local File InclusionCAPEC-252Medium
- Remote Code InclusionCAPEC-253
- Force Use of Corrupted FilesCAPEC-263Medium
- Open-Source Library ManipulationCAPEC-538likelihood: Low · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Process InjectionT1055
- Browser ExtensionsT1176
- Supply Chain Compromise: Software Dependencies and Development ToolsT1195.001
- Server Software Component: IIS ComponentsT1505.004
- Server Software Component: Terminal Services DLLT1505.005
- Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow: KernelCallbackTableT1574.013
- Reflective Code LoadingT1620
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (2 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.