CVE-2025-37936 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-37936
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-37936 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕗 21 May 2025, 20:25 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 20 May 2025, 16:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-37936 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-37936: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf/x86/intel: KVM: Mask PEBS_ENABLE loaded for guest with vCPU's value. When generating the MSR_IA32_PEBS_ENABLE value that will be loaded on VM-Entry to a KVM guest, mask the value with the vCPU's desired PEBS_ENABLE value. Consulting only the host kernel's host vs. guest masks results in running the guest with PEBS enabled even when the guest doesn't want to use PEBS. Because KVM uses perf events to proxy the guest virtual PMU, simply looking at exclude_host can't differentiate between events created by host userspace, and events created by KVM on behalf of the guest. Running the guest with PEBS unexpectedly enabled typically manifests as crashes due to a near-infinite stream of #PFs. E.g. if the guest hasn't written MSR_IA32_DS_AREA, the CPU will hit page faults on address '0' when trying to record PEBS events. The issue is most easily reproduced by running `perf kvm top` from before commit 7b100989b4f6 ("perf evlist: Remove __evlist__add_default") (after which, `perf kvm top` effectively stopped using PEBS). The userspace side of perf creates a guest-only PEBS event, which intel_guest_get_msrs() misconstrues a guest-*owned* PEBS event. Arguably, this is a userspace bug, as enabling PEBS on guest-only events simply cannot work, and userspace can kill VMs in many other ways (there is no danger to the host). However, even if this is considered to be bad userspace behavior, there's zero downside to perf/KVM restricting PEBS to guest-owned events. Note, commit 854250329c02 ("KVM: x86/pmu: Disable guest PEBS temporarily in two rare situations") fixed the case where host userspace is profiling KVM *and* userspace, but missed the case where userspace is profiling only KVM.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-37936

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-37936 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-37936

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-37936.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-37936, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-37936, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-37936 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-37936 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-37936 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-37936 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-37936: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-7074 – A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in vercel hyper up to 3.4.1. This affects the function expand/braceExpand/ignoreMap of the...
  • CVE-2023-50786 – Dradis through 4.16.0 allows referencing external images (resources) over HTTPS, instead of forcing the use of embedded (uploaded) images. This can...
  • CVE-2025-47228 – In the Production Environment extension in Netmake ScriptCase through 9.12.006 (23), shell injection in the SSH connection settings allows authenti...
  • CVE-2025-47227 – In the Production Environment extension in Netmake ScriptCase through 9.12.006 (23), the Administrator password reset mechanism is mishandled. Maki...
  • CVE-2024-58254 – The rustls crate 0.23.13 before 0.23.18 for Rust, when rustls::server::Acceptor::accept is used, allows a panic via a fragmented TLS ClientHello.