CVE-2016-1115
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 · uneditedAdobe ColdFusion 10 before Update 19, 11 before Update 8, and 2016 before Update 1 mishandles wildcards in name fields of X.509 certificates, which might allow man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers via a crafted certificate.
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 confidenceAdobe ColdFusion versions 10 before Update 19, 11 before Update 8, and 2016 before Update 1 improperly validate wildcard characters in X.509 certificate name fields (CN and SAN). This allows attackers to craft certificates with wildcards that match unintended domains, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks to impersonate legitimate servers.
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= 10.0= 11.0= 2016CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Identify installed ColdFusion versionLocate the ColdFusion installation and retrieve its version number (typically found in the ColdFusion administrator interface or version file). Compare this version against the affected ranges: ColdFusion 10 versions before Update 19, ColdFusion 11 versions before Update 8, or ColdFusion 2016 versions before Update 1.Affected if The installed ColdFusion version falls within any of these vulnerable version ranges.
-
Determine SSL/TLS usageIdentify whether the ColdFusion server is configured to make outbound or accept inbound SSL/TLS connections that rely on X.509 certificate validation.Affected if SSL/TLS connections using certificate validation are enabled and in use.
-
Check for wildcard certificate usageReview the SSL/TLS certificate configuration and identify if wildcard certificates (certificates with '*' in the CN or Subject Alternative Name fields) are deployed.Affected if Wildcard certificates are configured for SSL/TLS connections on the affected ColdFusion version.
A user is affected if they are running ColdFusion 10 before Update 19, ColdFusion 11 before Update 8, or ColdFusion 2016 before Update 1, and the server uses SSL/TLS with wildcard certificate validation.
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 updates: Update 19 for ColdFusion 10, Update 8 for ColdFusion 11, or Update 1 for ColdFusion 2016. Verify SSL/TLS functionality and certificate validation after patching.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,128.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1115 — 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-2016-1115 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