CVE-2016-3647
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 · uneditedSymantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) 12.1 before RU6 MP5 allows remote authenticated users to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks, and trigger network traffic to arbitrary intranet hosts, via a crafted request.
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 confidenceSymantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) 12.1 before RU6 MP5 contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. Authenticated remote attackers can craft malicious requests to force the SEPM server to make outbound connections to arbitrary intranet hosts, potentially allowing reconnaissance or pivoting into internal networks.
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<= 12.1.6CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/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 SEPM installationLocate the Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager installation directory or check Programs and Features for 'Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager'. The default install path is typically C:\Program Files (x86)\Symantec\Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager\Affected if Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager is not installed on the system.
-
Determine installed SEPM versionOpen the SEPM management console and navigate to Help > About, or check the version information in the Windows registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Symantec\Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager\CurrentVersion, or inspect the file version of SEPM.exe in the installation directory.Affected if The installed version is 12.1.6 or lower, meaning it is before RU6 MP5.
-
Verify management interface accessibilityConfirm the SEPM web-based management console port is listening (default ports 8443 or 8090). Check if the /servlet/ endpoint or similar management URLs are reachable over the network.Affected if The management console is exposed to untrusted networks, allowing authenticated attackers to reach the vulnerable endpoints.
-
Check for authenticated access pathsIdentify whether SEPM user accounts exist and could be leveraged by an attacker. Review the authentication mechanism and whether default or weak admin credentials are in use.Affected if Authenticated attacker access to SEPM is possible, which is required to exploit the SSRF vulnerability.
A user is affected if SEPM version 12.1.6 or lower is installed and its management interface is accessible to an authenticated attacker who can trigger outbound HTTP requests from the server.
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 to SEPM 12.1 RU6 MP5 or later. Additionally, restrict management interface access to trusted admin networks and apply network segmentation to limit the impact of SSRF pivoting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3647 — 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-2016-3647 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