CVE-2016-2963
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM BigFix Remote Control before 9.1.3 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that insert XSS sequences.
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 · moderate confidenceCSRF vulnerability in IBM BigFix Remote Control versions prior to 9.1.3 allows remote attackers to craft malicious requests that, when triggered by an authenticated user, can inject XSS sequences. The attacker tricks authenticated users into unknowingly executing commands that hijack their session authentication.
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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 installed IBM BigFix Remote Control versionLocate the installed version of IBM BigFix Remote Control through the BigFix console, installed programs list, or version information in the product's about sectionAffected if The installed version is 9.1.2 or earlier (any version prior to 9.1.3)
-
Verify web management interface is enabledCheck whether the IBM BigFix Remote Control web interface is accessible and enabled, as this vulnerability targets authenticated users through the web interfaceAffected if The web management interface is exposed and accessible to users
-
Confirm lack of anti-CSRF protection in session handlingInspect the application configuration or session management settings to determine whether anti-CSRF tokens or validation are implemented for web requestsAffected if No anti-CSRF tokens or request validation mechanisms are configured for web endpoints
-
Review session authentication configurationExamine session cookie settings and authentication mechanisms to verify if session hijacking is possible through forged requestsAffected if Session cookies lack proper token-based validation or referer checking
You are affected if IBM BigFix Remote Control version is 9.1.2 or earlier and the web management interface is enabled, allowing CSRF-based XSS injection via authenticated user sessions
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 to obtain the security patch. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens in application endpoints as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2963 — 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-2016-2963 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