CVE-2016-5682
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 · uneditedSwagger-UI before 2.2.1 has XSS via the Default field in the Definitions section.
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 confidenceSwagger-UI versions before 2.2.1 contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Definitions section. The 'Default' field does not properly sanitize user input, allowing injection of malicious JavaScript that executes when other users view the API definitions.
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< 2.2.1CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify Swagger-UI versionLocate the Swagger-UI instance in your environment and check its version number. This is often displayed in the UI header, in the package.json file if self-hosted, or in the JavaScript file names if bundled.Affected if The installed version is any version before 2.2.1
-
Verify Definitions section is accessibleAccess the Swagger-UI interface and navigate to the Models/Definitions section where the Default field is present. This feature is part of the standard Swagger-UI but may not be available if the API spec does not define any models.Affected if The Definitions/Models section is accessible and accepts input in the Default field for model properties
-
Confirm user input is not sanitized in Default fieldAttempt to insert a test script payload such as <script>alert(1)</script> into a Default field value for a model property in the Definitions section. Observe whether the script executes or is rendered as plain text when the definition is displayed.Affected if The malicious payload executes as JavaScript rather than being escaped or displayed as text
You are affected if Swagger-UI version is below 2.2.1 AND the Definitions section with the Default field is accessible in your environment.
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 data2.2.1
Upgrade Swagger-UI to version 2.2.1 or later which includes proper input sanitization for the Default field in the Definitions section.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5682 — 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-2016-5682 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