CVE-2016-4698
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 · uneditedAppleMobileFileIntegrity in Apple iOS before 10 and OS X before 10.12 mishandles process entitlement and Team ID values in the task port inheritance policy, which allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context via a crafted app.
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 · moderate confidenceAppleMobileFileIntegrity in iOS before 10 and OS X before 10.12 improperly handles process entitlement and Team ID values in the task port inheritance policy, allowing a malicious app to inject code into privileged contexts by exploiting how task ports are passed between processes.
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<= 9.3.5<= 10.11.6CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/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.
-
Check iOS version on iPhone or iPad devicesOn the device, go to Settings > General > About and note the version number. Alternatively, connect to a computer with iTunes or Finder and check the device info.Affected if The iOS version is 9.3.5 or earlier (any version up to and including 9.3.5)
-
Check macOS version on Mac computersClick the Apple menu > About This Mac. The version number is displayed below the macOS name.Affected if The macOS version is 10.11.6 or earlier (any version up to and including 10.11.6)
-
Confirm the AppleMobileFileIntegrity component is presentThis component is a core system framework included in iOS and macOS. No separate verification is needed beyond confirming the OS version.Affected if This check is informational only; the vulnerability exists in the AppleMobileFileIntegrity framework shipped with affected OS versions
If the device runs iOS 9.3.5 or earlier, or macOS 10.11.6 or earlier, the environment is affected by this entitlement validation flaw in AppleMobileFileIntegrity.
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 the vendor-supplied updates: upgrade iOS devices to version 10 or later and Macs to macOS 10.12 or later to remediate this entitlement validation flaw.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4698 — 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-2016-4698 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