CVE-2016-10026
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 · uneditedikiwiki 3.20161219 does not properly check if a revision changes the access permissions for a page on sites with the git and recentchanges plugins and the CGI interface enabled, which allows remote attackers to revert certain changes by leveraging permissions to change the page before the revision was made.
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 · moderate confidenceikiwiki 3.20161219 fails to properly validate whether reverting a page to a prior revision changes access permissions. On sites with git and recentchanges plugins enabled alongside the CGI interface, an attacker who previously had permission to modify a page could potentially revert it to an older revision that grants different (potentially broader) access permissions, bypassing current authorization controls.
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= 3.20161219CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check installed ikiwiki versionRun `ikiwiki --version` or look for the version in your package managerAffected if Version equals 3.20161219 exactly
-
Verify git plugin is enabledInspect your ikiwiki setup file (usually ikiwiki.setup or ikiwiki.yml) and look for 'git' in the enabled_plugins listAffected if The git plugin is listed in enabled_plugins
-
Verify recentchanges plugin is enabledInspect your ikiwiki setup file and look for 'recentchanges' in the enabled_plugins listAffected if The recentchanges plugin is listed in enabled_plugins
-
Verify CGI interface is enabledCheck your web server configuration and ikiwiki setup for CGI script handling (look for 'cgi' in setup or .cgi file references)Affected if CGI script handling is configured and active
You are affected if running exactly version 3.20161219 with all three components (git plugin, recentchanges plugin, and CGI interface) enabled simultaneously.
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 to a patched version of ikiwiki. As a temporary measure, restrict CGI write access and limit who can push changes to the git repository.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,952.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10026 — 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-2016-10026 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