CVE-2016-1241
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 · uneditedTryton 3.x before 3.2.17, 3.4.x before 3.4.14, 3.6.x before 3.6.12, 3.8.x before 3.8.8, and 4.x before 4.0.4 allow remote authenticated users to discover user password hashes via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceTryton versions 3.x through 4.x contain an information disclosure vulnerability allowing authenticated users to obtain password hashes for other users through unspecified vectors. This is a privilege escalation-style issue where regular users can access sensitive credential data they should not have visibility into.
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= 3.8.0= 3.8.1= 3.8.2= 3.8.3= 3.8.4= 3.8.5= 3.8.6= 3.8.7= 4.0.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2= 4.0.3CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 the installed Tryton versionRun the command to retrieve the Tryton server version, typically via the server startup log, version command, or package management system (e.g., pip show tryton or trytond --version)Affected if The version displayed is any of the following: 3.8.0, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, 4.0.0, 4.0.1, 4.0.2, or 4.0.3
-
Verify user authentication is enabledConfirm that user authentication is active on the Tryton instance by checking if the login functionality is operationalAffected if User authentication is enabled and the version falls within the affected range, creating the condition for unauthorized hash access
-
Audit access to user credential endpointsReview application logs and database audit trails for any access patterns to user password fields, user tables, or authentication-related API calls that were initiated by non-admin usersAffected if Non-privileged authenticated users have accessed records containing password hashes or credential data belonging to other users
-
Inspect user table permissionsExamine the database permissions on user-related tables to determine if regular users have SELECT or read access to password hash columnsAffected if Standard users have read access to password-related columns in the user database table
If the installed Tryton version is between 3.8.0 and 4.0.3 inclusive, and user authentication is enabled, the environment is potentially affected by the password hash information disclosure vulnerability.
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 to a patched version (3.2.17+, 3.4.14+, 3.6.12+, 3.8.8+, or 4.0.4+) to resolve the password hash exposure. Review access controls and audit logging to determine if any exploitation occurred.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1241 — 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-2016-1241 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