CVE-2016-0883
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 · uneditedPivotal Cloud Foundry (PCF) Ops Manager before 1.5.14 and 1.6.x before 1.6.9 uses the same cookie-encryption key across different customers' installations, which allows remote attackers to bypass session authentication by leveraging knowledge of this key from another installation.
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 confidencePivotal Cloud Foundry Ops Manager versions before 1.5.14 and 1.6.x before 1.6.9 use a static, default cookie-encryption key that is identical across all customer installations. An attacker who obtains this key (e.g., from compromising any single Ops Manager deployment) can forge valid session cookies and bypass authentication on any other vulnerable Ops Manager instance.
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<= 1.5.13= 1.6.0= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.6.3= 1.6.4= 1.6.5= 1.6.6= 1.6.7= 1.6.8CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Identify Ops Manager versionAccess the Ops Manager status page or run 'om products' command to determine the installed versionAffected if Version is 1.5.x <= 1.5.13 OR version is 1.6.0 through 1.6.8
-
Locate cookie encryption key configurationInspect Ops Manager configuration files for session or cookie encryption key settingsAffected if A static, default key value is present rather than a unique per-installation key
-
Verify key uniquenessCompare the deployed cookie-encryption key against known default key values or check if the key differs from other Ops Manager installationsAffected if The same key value is used as deployed in other environments or matches known default values
You are affected if Ops Manager version falls within 1.5.0-1.5.13 or 1.6.0-1.6.8 AND the cookie-encryption key matches the static default rather than a unique per-instance value.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Ops Manager to version 1.5.14 or 1.6.9 or later, then rotate all encryption keys and invalidate existing sessions to prevent cookie-forging attacks.
Upgrade to Ops Manager 1.5.14 or later, or Ops Manager 1.6.9 or later
- Upgrade Ops Manager to version 1.5.14 or later for the 1.5.x branch
- Alternatively, upgrade Ops Manager to version 1.6.9 or later for the 1.6.x branch
- After upgrade, verify that new unique cookie-encryption keys are generated for the installation
- Confirm that session authentication works correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0883 — 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-2016-0883 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