CVE-2016-1306
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Cisco Fog Director 1.0(0) allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted parameter, aka Bug ID CSCux80466.
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 confidenceMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities exist in Cisco Fog Director 1.0(0), allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via crafted parameters in HTTP requests. The vulnerabilities stem from insufficient input validation and output encoding of user-supplied data in the web interface.
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= snv_124CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 Cisco Fog Director installationCheck for Cisco Fog Director 1.0(0) installation on the system by searching for the application binary or service processAffected if Cisco Fog Director 1.0(0) is installed and running
-
Verify web interface is enabledConfirm the Cisco Fog Director web interface is accessible by checking if HTTP/HTTPS ports are listening (typically ports 80, 443, or custom web ports)Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible
-
Test for XSS via HTTP parameter injectionSend crafted HTTP requests with malicious script payloads in web interface parameters (e.g., search fields, form inputs) and observe if the payload is reflected unencoded in the responseAffected if User-supplied input is reflected in responses without proper HTML encoding
-
Review input validation implementationExamine the web application configuration or proxy logs for how user inputs are processed; check if there is any input filtering or validation middlewareAffected if No input validation or output encoding is implemented for web parameters
You are affected if Cisco Fog Director 1.0(0) is running with its web interface exposed and user inputs are not properly validated or encoded, allowing XSS injection via HTTP parameters.
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 vendor patches when available; until then, implement strict input validation and output encoding on all user-facing parameters, and consider deploying a WAF to block XSS attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1306 — 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-2016-1306 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