CVE-2016-0399
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 · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Maximo Asset Management 7.1 through 7.1.1.13, 7.5 before 7.5.0.9 IFIX007, and 7.6 before 7.6.0.5 FP005 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Maximo Asset Management allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL parameter. The vulnerability affects versions 7.1-7.1.1.13, 7.5 before IFIX007, and 7.6 before FP005.
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= 7.1= 7.1.1= 7.1.1.1= 7.1.1.2= 7.1.1.3= 7.1.1.5= 7.1.1.6= 7.1.1.7= 7.1.1.8= 7.1.1.9= 7.1.1.10= 7.1.1.11CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/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 the installed Maximo Asset Management versionLog into Maximo and navigate to the 'About' or 'System Information' page, or check the version via the Maximo Health Check tool or the maximo.properties file in the installation directoryAffected if The version is 7.1 through 7.1.1.13, 7.5 before IFIX007, or 7.6 before FP005
-
Confirm the exact version number for 7.1.1.x releasesCheck the version details in the Maximo System Information module - look for the full version string including any sub-release numbersAffected if The version shows 7.1.1.1 through 7.1.1.13 inclusive (7.1.1.14 or higher is patched)
-
Verify the IFIX level for version 7.5Check the Maximo System Information or the installed IFIXES via the IBM Installation Manager - look for IFIX007 or laterAffected if Version 7.5 is running without IFIX007 or later installed
-
Verify the FP level for version 7.6Check the Maximo System Information or check installed Fix Packs via the IBM Installation Manager - look for FP005 or laterAffected if Version 7.6 is running without FP005 or later installed
-
Determine if the web interface is accessible to authenticated usersConfirm that user authentication is enabled and the Maximo web application is accessible to internal usersAffected if The application accepts authenticated user sessions and processes URL parameters without proper output encoding
You are affected if your installed Maximo Asset Management version is 7.1-7.1.1.13, 7.5 before IFIX007, or 7.6 before FP005, and the web interface is accessible to authenticated users who can submit URL parameters.
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-supplied patches (7.5.0.9 IFIX007 for v7.5 and 7.6.0.5 FP005 for v7.6) and implement output encoding on user-supplied input in affected URL parameters.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0399 — 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-2016-0399 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