CVE-2016-10259
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 · uneditedSymantec SSL Visibility (SSLV) 3.8.4FC, 3.9, 3.10 before 3.10.4.1, and 3.11 before 3.11.3.1 is susceptible to a denial-of-service vulnerability that impacts the SSL servers for intercepted SSL connections. A malicious SSL client can, under certain circumstances, temporarily exhaust the TCP connection pool of an SSL server.
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 confidenceA denial-of-service vulnerability in Symantec SSL Visibility allows a malicious SSL client to temporarily exhaust the TCP connection pool of an SSL server for intercepted SSL connections, impacting the appliance's ability to inspect SSL traffic.
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= 3.8.4= 3.9= 3.10= 3.11= 3.11.1.1= 3.11.1.2= 3.11.2.1= 3.8.4= 3.9= 3.10= 3.11= 3.11.1.1= 3.11.1.2= 3.11.2.1= 3.8.4= 3.9= 3.10= 3.11= 3.11.1.1= 3.11.1.2= 3.11.2.1= 3.8.4= 3.9= 3.10= 3.11= 3.11.1.1= 3.11.1.2= 3.11.2.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 the SSL Visibility appliance modelAccess the appliance admin console or CLI and retrieve the hardware model (SV1800, SV800, SV3800, or SV2800)Affected if The model is one of these four: SV1800, SV800, SV3800, or SV2800
-
Determine the installed firmware versionUse the admin console (typically under System > Status or About) or run 'show version' in the CLI to retrieve the firmware versionAffected if The firmware version matches any of these: 3.8.4, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1.1, 3.11.1.2, or 3.11.2.1
-
Confirm SSL inspection is enabledCheck the SSL Visibility policy configuration to verify that SSL interception/inspection is active for outbound or inbound SSL/TLS trafficAffected if SSL interception is enabled and the appliance is performing SSL inspection on traffic
-
Check for TCP connection pool exhaustionReview appliance logs, monitoring dashboards, or run diagnostics to identify if the SSL server connection pool is saturated or if new SSL inspection connections are failingAffected if Connection failures, dropped SSL inspection sessions, or pool exhaustion messages appear in logs or monitoring
The environment is affected if the appliance is an SV1800, SV800, SV3800, or SV2800 model running firmware version 3.8.4 through 3.11.2.1 with SSL inspection enabled and experiencing connection pool exhaustion.
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 (version 3.10.4.1 or later for the 3.10 branch, or 3.11.3.1 or later for the 3.11 branch) to resolve the vulnerability.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10259 — 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-2016-10259 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