CVE-2016-5305
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in management scripts in Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) 12.1 before RU6 MP5 allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a "DOM link manipulation" attack.
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 confidenceMultiple stored XSS vulnerabilities exist in management scripts of Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) 12.1 before RU6 MP5. Authenticated users with access to the management console can inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via DOM link manipulation, which executes when other users view the affected pages.
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<= 12.1.6CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 SEPM versionAccess the Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager management console and navigate to Help > About Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager, or check the version in Windows Add/Remove Programs or the installation directoryAffected if The installed version is 12.1.6 or earlier (before RU6 MP5)
-
Verify console accessibilityDetermine if the SEPM management console web interface is exposed and accessible to users beyond trusted administratorsAffected if The management console is accessible to untrusted or low-privilege users
-
Identify affected management scriptsInspect management console pages for DOM link manipulation points where user-supplied input is reflected without proper sanitization - this requires manual review of console functionality or source codeAffected if The management console allows authenticated users to modify DOM elements that are displayed to other users viewing the same pages
You are affected if SEPM version 12.1.6 or earlier is installed AND the management console is accessible to users who could inject malicious HTML or JavaScript that would execute when viewed by other console users.
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 to Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager 12.1 RU6 MP5 or later to obtain the security patch. As a temporary workaround, restrict management console access to trusted users only and implement Content Security Policy headers.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,736.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5305 — 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-2016-5305 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