Rest\/jsonDrupal extension · Rest\/json Project
CVE-2016-20003
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 · uneditedThe REST/JSON project 7.x-1.x for Drupal allows user enumeration, aka SA-CONTRIB-2016-033. NOTE: This project is not covered by Drupal's security advisory policy.
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 confidenceThe REST/JSON Drupal module 7.x-1.x has a user enumeration vulnerability where the application returns different responses for valid versus invalid usernames, allowing attackers to discover valid user accounts on the system through systematic probing of the REST API endpoints.
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
Rest\/jsonDrupal extension
<= 7.x-1.5CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 if REST/JSON module is installedCheck the Drupal modules directory for the restjson module, or navigate to admin/modules and look for the REST/JSON module in the listAffected if The REST/JSON module is present in the Drupal installation
-
Check the REST/JSON module versionReview the module's .info file or the version displayed in admin/modules, then compare against the affected range of 7.x-1.5 and belowAffected if The installed version is 7.x-1.5 or any earlier release in the 7.x-1.x branch
-
Verify REST API endpoints are accessibleAttempt to access the REST/JSON module endpoints on the site, typically at paths like /rest/user/login or similar user-related REST pathsAffected if The REST API endpoints are reachable and respond to requests
-
Test for differential username responsesMake REST API requests using known-valid usernames (such as admin) and completely fabricated usernames, then compare the HTTP status codes, error messages, and response content between themAffected if Valid usernames produce measurably different responses (different status codes, error messages, or response structures) than invalid usernames
A Drupal site is affected if the REST/JSON module version 7.x-1.5 or below is installed and its REST endpoints return distinguishable responses for valid versus invalid usernames, enabling user enumeration.
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 dataUpdate or patch the REST/JSON module to return consistent responses regardless of whether a username exists, eliminating the differential response that enables enumeration.
Fix this in Rest\/json
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2016-20003 — 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-2016-20003 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