CVE-2016-10395
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 · uneditedIn FlexNet Publisher versions before Luton SP1 (11.14.1.1) running FlexNet Publisher Licensing Service on Windows platform, a boundary error related to a named pipe within the FlexNet Publisher Licensing Service can be exploited to cause an out-of-bounds memory read access and subsequently execute arbitrary code with SYSTEM privileges.
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 boundary error in the FlexNet Publisher Licensing Service's handling of named pipe communications on Windows allows an attacker to read memory beyond allocated buffers (out-of-bounds read). This information disclosure can be chained to achieve arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM-level privileges.
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<= 11.14.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 FlexNet Publisher versionLocate the FlexNet Publisher licensing components (lmgrd.exe, lmadmin.exe, or flexnetls.exe) in the installation directory and check their file properties for version information, or run 'lmgrd -version' from the command lineAffected if The reported version is 11.14.1 or lower
-
Verify License Manager service existsOpen Windows Services (services.msc) and locate the FlexNet Publisher License Manager service, or run 'sc query flexnetls' from an administrative command promptAffected if The FlexNet Publisher License Manager service is installed and running
-
Confirm named pipe communication is enabledCheck the license server configuration file (typically lmgrd.ini, license.dat, or vendor daemon configuration in the FlexNet installation directory) to verify the licensing service is configured to accept client connections via named pipesAffected if The licensing service is configured to accept network or named pipe connections (default behavior for most FlexNet installations)
-
Inspect running processesOpen Task Manager or run 'tasklist /fi "imagename eq flexnet*"' to confirm the flexnetls.exe or lmgrd.exe process is running with SYSTEM-level privilegesAffected if The FlexNet licensing service process is running, particularly under the SYSTEM account
You are affected if FlexNet Publisher version 11.14.1 or lower is installed and the FlexNet Publisher License Manager service is active, since the named pipe handling vulnerability is present in these conditions.
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 FlexNet Publisher to version 11.14.1.1 (Luton SP1) or later. Until patched, restrict access to the licensing service and monitor for anomalous named pipe activity.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10395 — 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-2016-10395 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