CVE-2016-3118
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 · uneditedCRLF injection vulnerability in CA API Gateway (formerly Layer7 API Gateway) 7.1 before 7.1.04, 8.0 through 8.3 before 8.3.01, and 8.4 before 8.4.01 allows remote attackers to have an unspecified impact via unknown 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 · moderate confidenceCRLF injection vulnerability in CA API Gateway allows remote attackers to inject carriage return and line feed characters, potentially enabling HTTP response splitting attacks, session hijacking, or cross-site scripting through manipulated HTTP headers. The vulnerability affects versions 7.1 before 7.1.04, 8.0-8.3 before 8.3.01, and 8.4 before 8.4.01.
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= 7.1= 8.0= 8.1= 8.2= 8.3= 8.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 CA/Broadcom API Gateway installationCheck for the Gateway installation directory (commonly /opt/SecureSpan/Gateway or C:\Program Files\CA\API Gateway) or look for the 'ssg' service process running on the system.Affected if The product is installed and running on the system.
-
Determine the installed Gateway versionRun the command 'ssgVersion.sh' (Linux/Unix) or check the file <install_dir>/version.properties on the Gateway node, or log into the API Gateway Manager and view the version under the 'About' section.Affected if Unable to retrieve a version number indicates a possible Gateway installation that requires manual inspection.
-
Compare version against affected rangesMatch the installed version (e.g., 7.1.00, 7.1.03, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3.00, 8.4.00) to the vulnerable ranges: 7.1.00-7.1.03, 8.0-8.3.00, or 8.4.00.Affected if The installed version falls within 7.1 (before 7.1.04), 8.0-8.3 (before 8.3.01), or 8.4 (before 8.4.01).
-
Confirm HTTP listener is enabledCheck the API Gateway policy manager or configuration for an active HTTP (port 8080) or HTTPS (port 8443) listener service that accepts incoming HTTP requests.Affected if The Gateway has an active HTTP/HTTPS listener exposed to network traffic, making it reachable for CRLF injection attacks.
The environment is affected if the CA/Broadcom API Gateway is running a version between 7.1.00 and 7.1.03, between 8.0 and 8.3.00, or exactly 8.4.00, and has an HTTP listener enabled to accept requests.
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 the vendor-provided patches by upgrading to version 7.1.04, 8.3.01, or 8.4.01 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement input validation at upstream proxies to filter CRLF sequences in HTTP requests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,368.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3118 — 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-2016-3118 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