CVE-2016-4370
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 · uneditedHPE Project and Portfolio Management Center (PPM) 9.2x and 9.3x before 9.32.0002 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands or obtain sensitive information via unspecified 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 · high confidenceHPE Project and Portfolio Management Center (PPM) versions 9.2x and 9.3x prior to 9.32.0002 contains a vulnerability allowing authenticated remote users to execute arbitrary operating system commands or obtain sensitive information through unspecified vectors. This is a critical access control or input validation flaw in the enterprise Java-based PPM application that enables privilege escalation beyond the authenticated user's intended permissions.
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= 9.20= 9.21= 9.22= 9.30= 9.31= 9.32CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Locate PPM installationCheck for HPE PPM installation directories (typically under /opt/hp/ppm or C:\Program Files\HP\PPM) or look for the 'ppm' service process running on the serverAffected if PPM software is present on the system
-
Identify PPM versionLook for version information in the PPM installation, commonly found in a version.txt, about.xml file, or in the admin UI login page banner. The version typically displays as 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.30, 9.31, or 9.32Affected if Installed version is 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.30, 9.31, or 9.32 (any 9.2x or 9.3x version before 9.32.0002)
-
Verify authentication is enabledConfirm that user authentication is enabled in PPM. Check the authentication configuration in the PPM admin console or configuration files (typically in conf folder under the PPM home directory)Affected if PPM authentication is active, allowing remote users to log in
-
Check for patch levelIn the PPM admin interface, navigate to About or System Information to confirm the exact build version. The fixed version is 9.32.0002Affected if Build version is below 9.32.0002 or the patch level cannot be verified as 9.32.0002 or later
Environment is affected if HPE PPM version 9.20 through 9.32 is installed with authentication enabled, and the patch level is below 9.32.0002
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 HPE patch 9.32.0002 or later to address the command injection/information disclosure vulnerability. Since valid authentication is required, also enforce least-privilege user accounts and network segmentation to limit exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4370 — 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-2016-4370 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