CVE-2016-1866
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 · uneditedSalt 2015.8.x before 2015.8.4 does not properly handle clear messages on the minion, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code by inserting packets into the minion-master data stream.
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 confidenceSalt 2015.8.x before 2015.8.4 fails to properly validate or authenticate clear-text messages exchanged between minion and master nodes. A man-in-the-middle attacker who can intercept and inject packets into this communication stream can execute arbitrary code on the targeted minion by sending specially crafted clear messages.
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= 2015.8.0= 2015.8.1= 2015.8.2= 2015.8.3= 42.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 installed Salt versionRun 'salt --version' on the master or minion, or check the package manager output (dpkg -r salt-master, rpm -q salt, zypper se salt)Affected if Version is 2015.8.0, 2015.8.1, 2015.8.2, or 2015.8.3 (or for OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, if the bundled Salt matches these versions)
-
Verify if clear-text Salt communication is in useExamine Salt master configuration (usually /etc/salt/master) for the 'publish_port' and 'master_port' settings, and check if any 'aes' or encryption-related settings have been disabled or removedAffected if Clear-text mode is enabled (default behavior in affected versions with no encryption wrapper)
-
Check for presence of encryption configurationLook for the presence of the 'pki_dir', 'auto_accept', and 'crypticle' settings in the Salt master/minion config files; verify if Salt's native encryption (AES) is actively being usedAffected if No encryption configuration is present and 'crypticle' is set to False or not configured, meaning clear-text messages can be injected
-
Inspect minion-master communication bindingCheck if the Salt traffic is bound to localhost only or uses unauthenticated ports (default 4505/4506) without TLS wrapping; examine network configuration for clear-text packet exposureAffected if Minion communicates with master over unencrypted channels without VPN or TLS tunnel wrapping
You are affected if your installed Salt version is 2015.8.0 through 2015.8.3 AND clear-text (unencrypted) communications are in use between minions and master, allowing packet injection.
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 Salt to version 2015.8.4 or later. Alternatively, enforce encrypted communications using Salt's native encryption or wrap the Salt traffic within a properly configured VPN or TLS tunnel to prevent packet injection.
- 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-2016-1866 — 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-2016-1866 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