CVE-2016-5655
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 · uneditedMisys FusionCapital Opics Plus does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
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 confidenceMisys FusionCapital Opics Plus fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers during TLS/SSL connections. This allows an attacker positioned on the network path to intercept communications via a man-in-the-middle attack by presenting a crafted or self-signed certificate, enabling exposure of sensitive data in transit.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Confirm Misys FusionCapital Opics Plus is installedLocate the installation directory or check program listings for Misys FusionCapital Opics PlusAffected if The product is installed and running on the system
-
Identify SSL/TLS configuration for outbound connectionsSearch for configuration files, properties files, or registry settings related to SSL/TLS connections within the application installation directoryAffected if SSL/TLS configuration files exist but do not enforce X.509 certificate chain validation
-
Check for disabled certificate validation settingsSearch configuration files and code for parameters that disable certificate validation such as 'trustAll', 'validateCertificates=false', 'skipValidation', or similar settingsAffected if Settings exist that disable or bypass certificate validation for SSL/TLS server connections
-
Verify trust store configurationInspect the configured trust store (keystore, truststore file, or Java truststore) referenced by the application for SSL/TLS connectionsAffected if No trust store is configured or the trust store does not contain valid CA certificates for server validation
-
Test for hostname verification enforcementIf possible, attempt to connect to an SSL endpoint using a certificate with a mismatched hostname and observe if the connection is rejectedAffected if The application accepts SSL connections regardless of hostname mismatch in the server certificate
The environment is affected if Misys FusionCapital Opics Plus is installed and its SSL/TLS configuration does not enforce X.509 certificate chain validation and hostname verification for server connections.
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 dataEnable and enforce proper X.509 certificate chain validation for all SSL/TLS server connections within the application, including hostname verification and trust store configuration.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5655 — 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-2016-5655 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