CVE-2016-4084
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 · uneditedInteger signedness error in epan/dissectors/packet-mswsp.c in the MS-WSP dissector in Wireshark 2.0.x before 2.0.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (integer overflow and application crash) via a crafted packet that triggers an unexpected array size.
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 confidenceInteger signedness error in the MS-WSP dissector (packet-mswsp.c) in Wireshark 2.0.x before 2.0.3 allows a crafted packet to trigger an integer overflow by miscalculating array size due to incorrect signed/unsigned integer handling, causing application crash (DoS).
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= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if Wireshark is installedRun 'wireshark --version' or 'tshark --version' from command line, or open Wireshark and go to Help > About WiresharkAffected if Wireshark is not installed - not affected
-
Verify the installed Wireshark versionIdentify the exact version number from the version output - look for 2.0.x seriesAffected if Version is 2.0.0, 2.0.1, or 2.0.2 - vulnerable version present
-
Confirm MS-WSP dissector is enabledIn Wireshark GUI, go to Analyze > Enabled Protocols and verify 'MS-WSP' is checked; or check configuration files for enabled dissectorsAffected if MS-WSP protocol dissector is enabled - the vulnerable code path can be triggered
-
Verify packet capture capability existsConfirm the system can receive or open packet capture files (.pcap, .pcapng) that may contain MS-WSP trafficAffected if System processes packet captures - crafted malicious packets could be processed
System is affected if Wireshark version 2.0.0, 2.0.1, or 2.0.2 is installed AND the MS-WSP dissector is enabled, allowing crafted packets to trigger the integer overflow crash.
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 Wireshark to version 2.0.3 or later; alternatively, disable the MS-WSP dissector if upgrade is not immediately feasible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4084 — 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-2016-4084 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