CVE-2016-2923
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 · uneditedIBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 8.5 through 8.5.5.9 Liberty before Liberty Fix Pack 16.0.0.2 does not include the HTTPOnly flag in a Set-Cookie header for an unspecified JAX-RS API cookie, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information via script access to this cookie.
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 confidenceIBM WebSphere Application Server Liberty 8.5 through 8.5.5.9 fails to set the HTTPOnly flag on a Set-Cookie header for a JAX-RS API cookie. Without HTTPOnly, the cookie is accessible to client-side JavaScript, enabling attackers to potentially steal session credentials via cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks.
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= 8.5.5.0= 8.5.5.1= 8.5.5.2= 8.5.5.3= 8.5.5.4= 8.5.5.5= 8.5.5.6= 8.5.5.7= 8.5.5.8= 8.5.5.9CVSS 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:3.0/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.
-
Check WebSphere Liberty versionLocate the version.info file in the Liberty installation directory (typically in the wlp/lib/versions directory) or run the 'version' command from the bin directory (e.g., ./version -v)Affected if The installed version is 8.5.5.0 through 8.5.5.9
-
Identify deployed JAX-RS applicationsReview the server.xml configuration file (typically in wlp/usr/servers/<serverName>/) for JAX-RS feature enablement or check for JAX-RS application WAR files in the apps directoryAffected if A JAX-RS application is deployed and enabled on the server
-
Test Set-Cookie response headersUse a browser developer tool or HTTP client (curl -v) to make a request to the JAX-RS API endpoint and inspect the Set-Cookie response headers for the presence of the HttpOnly attributeAffected if The Set-Cookie header for session or sensitive cookies does NOT contain the HttpOnly attribute (e.g., 'Set-Cookie: sessionId=abc123; Path=/' without HttpOnly flag)
You are affected if running Liberty version 8.5.5.0-8.5.5.9 with a JAX-RS application that sets cookies without the HttpOnly flag in the Set-Cookie header.
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 dataApply IBM WebSphere Liberty Fix Pack 16.0.0.2 or later, or configure the affected JAX-RS application to explicitly set the HTTPOnly attribute on sensitive cookies.
- 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-2016-2923 — 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-2016-2923 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