OpenshiftApplication · Redhat
CVE-2016-3703
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 · uneditedRed Hat OpenShift Enterprise 3.2 and 3.1 do not properly validate the origin of a request when anonymous access is granted to a service/proxy or pod/proxy API for a specific pod, which allows remote attackers to access API credentials in the web browser localStorage via an access_token in the query parameter.
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 confidenceOpenShift Enterprise 3.1/3.2 fails to validate request origin when anonymous access is enabled on service/proxy or pod/proxy APIs. This causes API credentials (access_token) to be exposed in URL query parameters, which can be leaked via browser history, Referer headers, or logs, allowing remote attackers to steal valid API credentials.
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
OpenshiftApplication
= 3.1= 3.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Check OpenShift versionRun 'oc version' or check the installed RPM package version (e.g., 'rpm -q openshift-enterprise')Affected if Version is 3.1 or 3.2 exactly
-
Verify if anonymous access is enabled on pod/proxy APIInspect the OpenShift master configuration file (typically /etc/origin/master/master-config.yaml) and look for the 'pod' resource under 'anonymous-bind-requests' or check API server settings for pod/proxy endpoint permissionsAffected if Anonymous access is permitted to the pod/proxy API endpoint
-
Verify if anonymous access is enabled on service/proxy APIInspect the same master configuration file for service/proxy API endpoint permissions, looking for 'service' under proxy-related API permissionsAffected if Anonymous access is permitted to the service/proxy API endpoint
-
Inspect API request logs for token exposureReview API server and load balancer logs for requests to /api/v1/namespaces/*/pods/*/proxy and /api/v1/namespaces/*/services/*/proxy endpoints that contain 'access_token=' or 'token=' in URL query parametersAffected if API tokens appear in URL query strings in logs or access history
User is affected if running OpenShift Enterprise 3.1 or 3.2 with anonymous access enabled on pod/proxy or service/proxy APIs, resulting in credentials being passed via URL query parameters.
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 dataDisable anonymous access to pod/proxy and service/proxy APIs in OpenShift configuration. If proxy access is required, implement proper token handling that avoids query parameter exposure (use Authorization headers or cookies with SameSite restrictions instead).
Fix this in Openshift
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3703 — 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-2016-3703 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