CVE-2016-3410
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Zimbra Collaboration before 8.7.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, aka bugs 103956, 103995, 104475, 104838, and 104839.
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 confidenceMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities exist in Zimbra Collaboration versions prior to 8.7.0. These flaws allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML through unspecified vectors across five documented bugs (103956, 103995, 104475, 104838, 104839). The CVSS 6.1 rating indicates medium severity with network-exploitable, low-complexity attacks requiring no 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<= 8.6.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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 installed Zimbra versionRun the Zimbra version command (zmcontrol -v) or inspect the version file in the Zimbra installation directory to determine the exact installed releaseAffected if Version displays as 8.6.0 or any version prior to 8.7.0 (8.0.x, 8.5.x, etc.)
-
Confirm Zimbra web services are activeVerify that the Zimbra web client and/or admin interface are accessible and running. Check the status of mailboxd, httpd, or nginx components depending on the versionAffected if Web interface is exposed and accessible to network users or attackers
-
Check for public network exposureReview firewall rules, load balancer configurations, or reverse proxy settings to determine if the Zimbra web ports (HTTP/HTTPS) are reachable from untrusted networksAffected if Ports 80, 443, or the configured web ports are exposed to the internet or untrusted internal segments
You are affected if your Zimbra Collaboration Suite installation shows a version number of 8.6.0 or lower AND the web interface is accessible to potential attackers.
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 Zimbra Collaboration to version 8.7.0 or later to address all five XSS vulnerabilities. Until upgrade is completed, implement input validation and output encoding as compensating controls.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3410 — 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-2016-3410 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