CVE-2016-0342
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 · uneditedIBM TRIRIGA Application Platform 3.3 before 3.3.2.6, 3.4 before 3.4.2.3, and 3.5 before 3.5.0.1 allows remote authenticated users to read or modify arbitrary reports by leveraging an incorrect grant of access. IBM X-Force ID: 111783.
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 TRIRIGA Application Platform versions 3.3 before 3.3.2.6, 3.4 before 3.4.2.3, and 3.5 before 3.5.0.1 contains an access control vulnerability where authenticated users can read or modify arbitrary reports due to an incorrect grant of access. This is a broken access control (likely Insecure Direct Object Reference) vulnerability in the report access mechanism.
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>= 3.3.0.0, < 3.3.2.6>= 3.4.0.0, < 3.4.2.3= 3.5.0.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 installed IBM TRIRIGA versionAccess the system administration console or About page in the TRIRIGA application to retrieve the platform version numberAffected if The installed version falls within 3.3.0.0 to < 3.3.2.6, 3.4.0.0 to < 3.4.2.3, or equals 3.5.0.0
-
Confirm report access module is in useVerify that the IBM TRIRIGA reporting functionality is enabled and accessible to users within the applicationAffected if The report module is active and users have the ability to create, modify, or view reports
-
Audit user role assignments for report permissionsReview the role-based access control (RBAC) configuration to identify which authenticated users have been granted report-level permissionsAffected if Users exist in roles that permit report access, particularly if those roles are assigned to non-administrative or untrusted accounts
-
Inspect report object permissionsExamine the access control lists or permissions on individual report objects within the TRIRIGA platform to verify if unauthorized users can access reports outside their intended scopeAffected if Report objects permit access to users who should not have read or modify permissions based on the intended access model
A user is affected if the installed IBM TRIRIGA version is within the vulnerable ranges AND the report access functionality is available to authenticated users in the environment.
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 data3.3.2.63.4.2.3
Apply the vendor patches (3.3.2.6, 3.4.2.3, or 3.5.0.1) to fix the authorization logic. Until patched, audit and restrict user permissions to report access using the platform's role-based access controls.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0342 — 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-2016-0342 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