CVE-2016-5752
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 · uneditedThe SAML2 implementation in Identity Server in NetIQ Access Manager 4.1 before 4.1.2 HF1 and 4.2 before 4.2.2 was handling unsigned SAML requests incorrectly, leaking results to a potentially malicious "Assertion Consumer Service URL" instead of the original requester.
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 confidenceThe SAML2 implementation in NetIQ Access Manager Identity Server versions 4.1 before 4.1.2 HF1 and 4.2 before 4.2.2 incorrectly handles unsigned SAML authentication requests. The vulnerability allows the server to leak SAML authentication results to an attacker-controlled 'Assertion Consumer Service URL' rather than the legitimate requester, potentially enabling authentication bypass or session hijacking.
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= 4.1= 4.2CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed NetIQ Access Manager versionCheck the installed version of NetIQ Access Manager Identity Server using the product's admin console, version lookup command, or installed packages listAffected if Version is 4.1.x before 4.1.2 HF1 or 4.2.x before 4.2.2
-
Confirm SAML2 identity provider is configuredVerify that the SAML2 identity provider component is enabled and configured in the Access Manager administration interfaceAffected if SAML2 identity provider is active and processing authentication requests
-
Check SAML authentication request settingsReview the SAML2 configuration for the identity provider to determine whether signed authentication requests are enforced for all service providersAffected if Unsigned SAML authentication requests are accepted or signing requirements are not enforced for service provider connections
-
Verify service provider configurationExamine the configured service provider connections in the SAML2 identity provider settings to confirm which service providers are defined and their message signing requirementsAffected if Any service provider is configured without requiring signed authentication requests
A user is affected if running NetIQ Access Manager Identity Server version 4.1 before 4.1.2 HF1 or 4.2 before 4.2.2 with SAML2 identity provider configured and allowing unsigned SAML authentication requests from service providers.
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 patches (4.1.2 HF1 or 4.2.2) to address the improper handling of unsigned SAML requests and ensure SAML message signing is enforced for all service provider configurations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5752 — 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-2016-5752 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