CVE-2015-1616
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in the ePO extension in McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint (DLPe) before 9.3.400 allows remote authenticated ePO users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the ePO extension in McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint (DLPe) before version 9.3.400 allows remote authenticated ePO users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors. The vulnerability requires authentication but can be exploited remotely.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 9.3.300CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify DLPe versionCheck the installed McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint version through the ePO console under the DLPe extension properties, or check the program files\McAfee\DLPE\ folder for version information in the About or version fileAffected if The installed version is 9.3.300 or lower (any version <= 9.3.300)
-
Confirm ePO extension is presentVerify the ePO extension for DLPe is installed by viewing the installed extensions in the McAfee ePO console under Server Settings > ExtensionsAffected if The DLPe ePO extension is present and enabled in the environment
-
Check ePO remote access configurationExamine whether remote authenticated users can access the ePO console by reviewing the ePO authentication settings and user permissions in the ePO console under User ManagementAffected if Remote authenticated ePO user accounts exist or remote access to ePO is enabled
-
Identify ePO versionCheck the ePO server version through the ePO console (typically shown in the console footer or under Server Settings > About) to confirm the ePO environmentAffected if The environment uses ePO to manage DLPe (the vulnerable component requires ePO integration)
The environment is affected if DLPe version is 9.3.300 or lower AND the ePO extension is present with remote authentication enabled, since the SQL injection requires authenticated ePO access to exploit.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint (DLPe) to version 9.3.400 or later to remediate the SQL injection vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1616 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-1616 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data