CVE-2016-5797
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 · uneditedTollgrade LightHouse SMS before 5.1 patch 3 provides different error messages for failed authentication attempts depending on whether the username exists, which allows remote attackers to enumerate account names via a series of attempts.
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 confidenceTollgrade LightHouse SMS before 5.1 patch 3 contains a username enumeration vulnerability where the application returns different error messages for failed authentication attempts depending on whether the submitted username exists in the system, allowing remote attackers to discover valid account names through repeated login attempts.
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<= 5.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 the installed Tollgrade LightHouse SMS versionAccess the application admin interface or check system documentation for the software version number. This is typically found in the About or System Info section of the web interface, or via command line if you have server access.Affected if The installed version is 5.1 or earlier (before patch 3)
-
Test authentication with a non-existent usernameAttempt to log in using a username that you are certain does not exist in the system, paired with any password. Record the exact error message displayed.Affected if An error message is returned that indicates the username does not exist or is invalid
-
Test authentication with an existing username and wrong passwordAttempt to log in using a known-valid username (such as a default admin account) but with an incorrect password. Record the exact error message displayed.Affected if An error message is returned that indicates the password is incorrect or authentication failed
-
Compare the error messages from both testsExamine the error messages from step 2 and step 3. Look for differences in wording, timing, or format that would reveal whether the username exists in the system.Affected if The error messages differ between the two scenarios, revealing whether the username is valid
You are affected if your Tollgrade LightHouse SMS version is 5.1 or earlier AND the application returns different error messages for invalid usernames versus wrong passwords, allowing an attacker to enumerate valid accounts.
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 dataImplement uniform error messages for all failed authentication attempts that do not reveal whether the username or password was incorrect, regardless of whether the account exists.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5797 — 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-2016-5797 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