CVE-2016-10534
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 · uneditedelectron-packager is a command line tool that packages Electron source code into `.app` and `.exe` packages. along with Electron. The `--strict-ssl` command line option in electron-packager >= 5.2.1 <= 6.0.0 || >=6.0.0 <= 6.0.2 defaults to false if not explicitly set to true. This could allow an attacker to perform a man in the middle attack.
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 confidenceThe electron-packager tool has a vulnerability where the --strict-ssl command line option defaults to false when not explicitly set to true, across versions 5.2.1 through 6.0.2. This disables SSL/TLS certificate validation during the packaging process, potentially allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to inject malicious code into packaged Electron applications.
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>= 5.2.1, <= 6.0.2CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 electron-packager versionRun `npm list electron-packager` or `npm show electron-packager version` to determine the installed version of electron-packagerAffected if The installed version is 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.0, 5.3.1, 6.0.0, 6.0.1, or 6.0.2 (any version from 5.2.1 through 6.0.2)
-
Verify strict-ssl configuration in package.jsonInspect your project's package.json scripts for any electron-packager commands and check if --strict-ssl is explicitly set to trueAffected if Using an affected version (5.2.1-6.0.2) without the --strict-ssl=true flag in the electron-packager command
-
Check global or local .npmrc configurationLook for .npmrc files in the project directory, home directory, or run `npm config get strict-ssl` to see if strict-ssl is configured at the npm levelAffected if Using an affected version and strict-ssl is not explicitly set to true either in the electron-packager command or in npm configuration
A user is affected if they are running electron-packager version 5.2.1 through 6.0.2 and have not explicitly set --strict-ssl=true in their packaging command or npm configuration
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 dataExplicitly set --strict-ssl=true when running electron-packager commands, or upgrade to version 6.0.3 or later where strict-ssl defaults to true or the vulnerability is addressed.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10534 — 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-2016-10534 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