CVE-2016-5787
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 · uneditedGeneral Electric (GE) Digital Proficy HMI/SCADA - CIMPLICITY before 8.2 SIM 27 mishandles service DACLs, which allows local users to modify a service configuration via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in GE Digital Proficy HMI/SCADA - CIMPLICITY before version 8.2 SIM 27 involves improper handling of service Discretionary Access Control Lists (DACLs). The misconfigured service permissions allow local unprivileged users to modify service configuration settings, potentially enabling privilege escalation by changing executable paths or service parameters.
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< 8.2= 8.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 CIMPLICITY installation and versionCheck the Windows Registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\GE\CIMPLICITY\Version or look in Program Files for the CIMPLICITY installation directory and locate version information in the about or readme filesAffected if The installed version is earlier than 8.2 SIM 27, or the version shows 8.2 without the SIM 27 update level
-
Verify CIMPLICITY service existsOpen Services console (services.msc) or run 'sc query Cimplicity' from command prompt to check if the CIMPLICITY service is installedAffected if The CIMPLICITY service is present on the system
-
Examine service DACL permissionsRun 'sc sdshow Cimplicity' from an elevated command prompt to view the Security Descriptor Definition Language (SDDL) of the service, or use Sysinternals AccessChk (accesschk.exe -ucqv Cimplicity) to check which users have write access to the serviceAffected if Non-admin users or the Users group have Write or Full Control permissions on the service security descriptor, indicated by (A;;GRGW;;;AU) or similar entries granting write access to the Users group
-
Check service configuration change permissionsUse 'sc qc Cimplicity' to query the service configuration, then attempt to verify if standard users can modify executable path or failure actions via 'sc config' or the Services console with limited credentialsAffected if The service permissions allow unprivileged users to modify executable path, start type, or recovery options
Your environment is affected if CIMPLICITY version is before 8.2 SIM 27 AND the service DACLs grant unprivileged users the ability to modify service configuration settings.
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 data8.2
Upgrade to CIMPLICITY version 8.2 SIM 27 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Additionally, review and硬化 service DACLs to restrict modification rights to Administrators only, and apply the principle of least privilege to service configurations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5787 — 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-2016-5787 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