CVE-2016-2950
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in IBM BigFix Remote Control before 9.1.3 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands 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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in IBM BigFix Remote Control versions prior to 9.1.3 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands through unspecified vectors. The vulnerability stems from improper input validation in database queries, enabling attackers with valid credentials to inject malicious SQL statements.
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<= 9.1.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm IBM BigFix Remote Control is installedCheck system inventory or installed programs list for IBM BigFix Remote Control. On Windows, verify the presence of the BigFix Remote Control installation directory (typically under Program Files/IBM/BigFix Remote Control or similar).Affected if The software is present on the system
-
Determine the installed versionLocate the version information in the product documentation, about screen, or installation directory. Common locations include a version.txt file, the main executable properties, or the Windows Registry under HKLM\Software\IBM\BigFix Remote Control.Affected if The installed version is 9.1.2 or earlier (any version prior to 9.1.3)
-
Verify remote access or web interface is enabledCheck the IBM BigFix Remote Control configuration settings to determine if the remote access feature or web-based management interface is enabled and accessible over the network.Affected if Remote access or the web interface is enabled, allowing authenticated users to reach the query functionality
-
Confirm authentication is configured for the productReview the user authentication settings in the BigFix Remote Control administration console or configuration files to verify that user accounts exist and authentication is active.Affected if Local or domain user authentication is configured and active, providing valid credentials that could be used to exploit the SQL injection
A user is affected if IBM BigFix Remote Control version 9.1.2 or earlier is installed with remote access or web interface authentication enabled, allowing authenticated attackers to inject SQL through unvalidated input fields.
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 IBM BigFix Remote Control to version 9.1.3 or later. Additionally, implement least-privilege database accounts and apply web application firewall rules to monitor for SQL injection patterns as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,296.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2950 — 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-2016-2950 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