CVE-2016-5978
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 · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Web UI in the web portal in IBM Tealeaf Customer Experience before 8.7.1.8847 FP10, 8.8 before 8.8.0.9049 FP9, 9.0.0 and 9.0.1 before 9.0.1.1117 FP5, 9.0.1A before 9.0.1.5108_9.0.1A FP5, 9.0.2 before 9.0.2.1223 FP3, and 9.0.2A before 9.0.2.5224_9.0.2A FP3 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an embedded string, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-5975.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Tealeaf Customer Experience Web UI allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an embedded string in the web portal.
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= 8.7= 8.8= 9.0.0= 9.0.0a= 9.0.1= 9.0.1a= 9.0.2= 9.0.2aCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm IBM Tealeaf installation existsLocate the Tealeaf installation directory on the system - common paths include C:\Program Files\IBM\Tealeaf or /opt/IBM/Tealeaf on Linux. Check for the presence of Tealeaf core components and the Web UI directory structure.Affected if IBM Tealeaf Customer Experience software is not present on the system, the system is not affected.
-
Identify installed Tealeaf versionCheck version information in the Tealeaf installation - look for version.txt, about.html, or check the Tealeaf administration console for the version number. Compare against the affected versions: 8.7, 8.8, 9.0.0, 9.0.0a, 9.0.1, 9.0.1a, 9.0.2, 9.0.2a.Affected if The installed version matches one of the listed affected versions.
-
Verify Web UI is accessibleConfirm the Tealeaf Web UI portal is deployed and accessible. This is typically accessed via a web browser to the Tealeaf server URL on ports 8080, 8443, or as configured during installation.Affected if The Web UI portal is not accessible or not installed, the XSS vulnerability cannot be exploited.
-
Confirm user authentication capabilityVerify that user accounts exist and can authenticate to the Tealeaf Web UI. The XSS requires an authenticated user session to inject malicious script through the web portal.Affected if The Web UI permits authenticated user sessions, the attack vector is present.
The environment is affected if IBM Tealeaf Customer Experience is installed with version 8.7, 8.8, 9.0.0, 9.0.0a, 9.0.1, 9.0.1a, 9.0.2, or 9.0.2a and the Web UI portal is accessible to authenticated users.
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 vendor-provided patches (FP10 for 8.7.1, FP9 for 8.8, FP5 for 9.0.1/9.0.1A/9.0.2/9.0.2A) or implement output encoding and input validation on affected Web UI parameters.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5978 — 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-2016-5978 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