CVE-2016-2165
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 Loggregator Traffic Controller endpoints in cf-release v231 and lower, Pivotal Elastic Runtime versions prior to 1.5.19 AND 1.6.x versions prior to 1.6.20 are not cleansing request URL paths when they are invalid and are returning them in the 404 response. This could allow malicious scripts to be written directly into the 404 response.
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 Loggregator Traffic Controller in Cloud Foundry cf-release and Pivotal Elastic Runtime does not sanitize invalid request URL paths before including them in 404 error responses. This allows malicious JavaScript code embedded in the URL path to be reflected back to the user, creating a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in error pages.
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<= 231<= 1.5.18= 1.6.0= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.6.3= 1.6.4= 1.6.5= 1.6.6= 1.6.7= 1.6.8= 1.6.9= 1.6.10CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 Loggregator Traffic Controller presenceCheck your Cloud Foundry deployment for the Loggregator Traffic Controller component. This is typically found in the 'loggregator' or 'trafficcontroller' job/process on your deployment nodes.Affected if The Loggregator Traffic Controller component is present in your deployment
-
Determine cf-release versionRun 'bosh releases' or check your deployment manifest for the cf-release version number.Affected if The cf-release version is 231 or lower
-
Determine Elastic Runtime versionCheck the Pivotal Elastic Runtime version in your deployment using 'bosh releases' or the Ops Manager interface.Affected if The Elastic Runtime version is 1.5.18 or lower, OR any version from 1.6.0 through 1.6.10
-
Test for reflected XSS in 404 responsesSend an HTTP request to the Loggregator Traffic Controller endpoint with a malicious JavaScript payload in the URL path, for example: 'http://<trafficcontroller-host>/<script>alert(1)</script>'. Inspect the 404 response body to see if the unsanitized path is reflected.Affected if The 404 error response contains the raw, unsanitized URL path including the script payload
You are affected if your deployment uses a vulnerable cf-release (231 or lower) or Elastic Runtime (1.5.18 or lower, or 1.6.0-1.6.10) AND the Loggregator Traffic Controller is present, allowing unsanitized URL paths to be reflected in 404 responses.
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 cf-release to v232 or later, or Pivotal Elastic Runtime to 1.5.19+/1.6.20+ to ensure URL paths are properly sanitized in 404 responses.
- 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-2016-2165 — 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-2016-2165 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