CVE-2016-10789
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 · uneditedcPanel before 60.0.25 allows code execution via the cpsrvd 403 error response handler (SEC-191).
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 confidencecPanel before version 60.0.25 contains a code execution vulnerability in the cpsrvd daemon's 403 error response handler. An attacker can potentially execute arbitrary code via crafted requests that trigger the error handler, likely through some form of injection or improper input handling in the error page generation process.
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>= 11.54.0.0, < 11.54.0.33>= 55.9999.61, < 56.0.39>= 57.9999.48, < 58.0.37>= 59.9999.58, < 60.0.25CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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 cPanel versionRun command: /usr/local/cpanel/cpanel -V or check /usr/local/cpanel/versionAffected if Version matches any of these ranges: 11.54.0.0-11.54.0.32, 55.9999.61-56.0.38, 57.9999.48-58.0.36, 59.9999.58-60.0.24
-
Verify cpsrvd daemon is runningRun command: ps aux | grep cpsrvdAffected if cpsrvd process is running on the system
-
Check if web server is accessible externallyReview firewall rules with: iptables -L -n or check cPanel WHM firewall configuration for ports 2082, 2083, 2086, 2087Affected if cpsrvd web ports (2082/2083 or 2086/2087) are exposed to network
-
Confirm 403 error handling is functionalSend a request that triggers a 403 error to the cPanel web server and observe the responseAffected if 403 error pages are being served, indicating the vulnerable handler is active
The system is affected if cPanel version falls within any of the four vulnerable ranges AND cpsrvd is running and accessible.
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 data11.54.0.3356.0.3958.0.37
Upgrade cPanel to version 60.0.25 or later to patch the vulnerability in the cpsrvd 403 error handler.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10789 — 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-2016-10789 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