CVE-2016-2402
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 · uneditedOkHttp before 2.7.4 and 3.x before 3.1.2 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to bypass certificate pinning by sending a certificate chain with a certificate from a non-pinned trusted CA and the pinned certificate.
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 confidenceOkHttp before 2.7.4 and 3.x before 3.1.2 contains a certificate pinning bypass vulnerability where an attacker performing a man-in-the-middle attack can send a certificate chain containing both a certificate from a non-pinned trusted CA and the pinned certificate itself, causing the pinning validation to pass incorrectly.
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<= 2.7.3= 3.0.0= 3.0.1= 3.1.0= 3.1.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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 OkHttp library versionInspect your project's dependency management file (pom.xml for Maven, build.gradle for Gradle) or the OkHttp JAR file manifest to determine the exact version of OkHttp in useAffected if The identified version is 2.7.3 or earlier for 2.x, or 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 for 3.x
-
Confirm certificate pinning is in useSearch your codebase for usage of OkHttp's CertificatePinner class or the setCertificatePinner method on OkHttpClientAffected if Certificate pinning is configured and the application uses OkHttp versions in the affected ranges above
-
Check pinning implementation for chain validation weaknessReview the certificate pinning validation logic to confirm it processes the full certificate chain rather than checking only the leaf certificate against the pinned certificateAffected if The pinning implementation only compares the pinned certificate against any certificate in the chain without verifying it is the trusted CA-issued certificate, allowing a malicious chain with both a trusted CA cert and the pinned cert to pass validation
You are affected if your application uses OkHttp versions 2.7.3 or earlier (2.x) or versions 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 (3.x) AND has certificate pinning enabled through OkHttp's CertificatePinner, as the pinning validation can be bypassed by a MITM attack presenting a certificate chain containing both a non-pinned trusted CA certificate and the pinned certificate itself.
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 OkHttp to version 2.7.4 or later (for 2.x) or 3.1.2 or later (for 3.x) to obtain the fixed certificate chain validation logic.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2402 — 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-2016-2402 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