NetscalerApplication · Citrix
CVE-2016-2072
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 Administrative Web Interface in Citrix NetScaler Application Delivery Controller (ADC) and NetScaler Gateway 11.x before 11.0 Build 64.34, 10.5 before 10.5 Build 59.13, 10.5.e before Build 59.1305.e, and 10.1 allows remote attackers to conduct clickjacking attacks 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 · high confidenceThe Citrix NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway administrative web interfaces before the specified build numbers are vulnerable to clickjacking attacks. Attackers can embed the admin interface in invisible iframes to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended actions, such as modifying configurations or creating new admin accounts.
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
NetscalerApplication
= 10.1= 10.5= 10.5e= 11.0CVSS 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 NetScaler versionLog into the NetScaler command-line interface and run the command 'show version' or access the web interface and view the system information page to determine the exact build numberAffected if The installed version is 10.1, 10.5, 10.5e, or 11.0 specifically (not a later patched build)
-
Verify X-Frame-Options header presenceSend an HTTP request to the NetScaler admin web interface (typically port 443 or 8080) and inspect the response headers for X-Frame-Options. Use a tool like curl -I https://<netscaler-ip>/ or check via browser developer tools on the Network tabAffected if The response does not include X-Frame-Options: DENY or X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN header, indicating the interface can be embedded in iframes
-
Check Content-Security-Policy frame-ancestorsInspect the HTTP response headers from the admin interface for Content-Security-Policy header and verify if frame-ancestors directive is configured to restrict framingAffected if No Content-Security-Policy header with frame-ancestors restriction is present, allowing the interface to be framed by any site
The environment is affected if the NetScaler is version 10.1, 10.5, 10.5e, or 11.0 and neither X-Frame-Options nor Content-Security-Policy frame-ancestors headers are configured to prevent iframe embedding.
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 dataConfigure the NetScaler to send X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN HTTP headers, or implement Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors directive to prevent the administrative interface from being embedded in iframes on untrusted domains.
Fix this in Netscaler
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2072 — 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-2016-2072 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