CVE-2016-0271
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 · uneditedThe agents in IBM UrbanCode Deploy 6.x before 6.0.1.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.3.3, and 6.2.x before 6.2.1.1 do not verify a server's identity in a JMS session or an HTTP session, which allows local users to obtain root access to arbitrary agents 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 confidenceIBM UrbanCode Deploy agents in versions 6.x before 6.0.1.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.3.3, and 6.2.x before 6.2.1.1 fail to verify the server's identity during JMS or HTTP session establishment. This allows a local attacker to impersonate the deployment server and send commands to agents that execute with root privileges.
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= 6.0= 6.0.1.0= 6.0.1.1= 6.0.1.2= 6.0.1.3= 6.0.1.4= 6.0.1.5= 6.0.1.6= 6.0.1.7= 6.0.1.8= 6.0.1.9= 6.0.1.10CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Locate IBM UrbanCode Deploy installationSearch for IBM UrbanCode Deploy installation directories or check for the 'ucd' command-line tool in the system PATHAffected if The product is not installed on the system (not affected)
-
Identify the installed versionRun the agent version command or inspect the product's about/version information file. Typical commands: 'ucd-agent --version' or check the agent's version file in the installation directoryAffected if Version is 6.0.x before 6.0.1.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.3.3, or 6.2.x before 6.2.1.1 - user is affected
-
Verify communication configurationCheck the agent's communication settings in its configuration file to confirm it uses JMS or HTTP transport. Look for transport protocol settings in the agent's properties or config.xmlAffected if Agent uses JMS or HTTP communication (the default modes); if using a different secured transport, may not be affected
-
Confirm agent is activeCheck if the IBM UrbanCode Deploy agent process is running on the systemAffected if Agent is running and accepting commands from the server - the vulnerability is exploitable in this state
User is affected if IBM UrbanCode Deploy agent is installed with a version in the 6.0.x before 6.0.1.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.3.3, or 6.2.x before 6.2.1.1 ranges and uses JMS or HTTP communication
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 dataApply the vendor patches (6.0.1.14, 6.1.3.3, or 6.2.1.1) to implement proper server identity verification in agent communications.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,128.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0271 — 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-2016-0271 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