CVE-2016-4494
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability on KMC Controls BAC-5051E devices with firmware before E0.2.0.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that disclose the contents of a configuration file.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in KMC Controls BAC-5051E devices with firmware before E0.2.0.2 allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions and send unauthorized requests that disclose the contents of configuration files. The attack exploits the lack of anti-CSRF tokens or referrer validation in the device's web interface.
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<= -CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Confirm device modelAccess the device's web interface or use SNMP to query the device identity. Look for 'BAC-5051E' or 'KMC Controls' in the device information.Affected if The device is not a KMC Controls BAC-5051E, then this CVE does not apply.
-
Check firmware versionNavigate to the device's web management interface (typically via HTTP/HTTPS) and locate the firmware version information, usually found in System Info, Status, or About pages. Alternatively, query via SNMP using OID for firmware version.Affected if The firmware version is earlier than E0.2.0.2 (for example, E0.2.0.1, E0.1.x.x, or any version without the 'E0.2.0.2' patch).
-
Verify web interface accessibilityDetermine if the device's web management interface is accessible from the network. Check firewall rules, VLAN configuration, or attempt a local HTTP/HTTPS connection to the device's IP address.Affected if The web interface is exposed to untrusted networks (such as the internet or guest networks), increasing the likelihood of exploitation.
-
Check authentication configurationReview the device's security settings to confirm whether authentication is required for web interface access, and verify that default credentials have been changed.Affected if The device allows unauthenticated access or uses default credentials, making CSRF attacks more feasible.
The environment is affected if the device is a KMC Controls BAC-5051E with firmware version earlier than E0.2.0.2 and its web interface is network-accessible.
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 BAC-5051E firmware to E0.2.0.2 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, restrict network access to the device's web management interface and monitor for suspicious configuration retrieval requests.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4494 — 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-2016-4494 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