DrupalCMS
CVE-2016-6211
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 User module in Drupal 7.x before 7.44 allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via vectors involving contributed or custom code that triggers a rebuild of the user profile form.
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 User module in Drupal 7.x before 7.44 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability where remote authenticated users can gain elevated privileges. The issue occurs when contributed or custom code triggers a rebuild of the user profile form, allowing an attacker to manipulate form state and escalate their privileges within the Drupal system.
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
DrupalCMS
= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4= 7.5= 7.6= 7.7= 7.8= 7.9= 7.10= 7.11
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Drupal core versionCheck the VERSION constant in includes/bootstrap.inc or the drupal_system_info() output, or look at the CHANGELOG.txt file in the Drupal root directoryAffected if The installed version is any version before 7.44 (including 7.0 through 7.11 as listed)
-
Confirm authenticated user access existsReview user roles and permissions in the Drupal administration panel under People > Roles, or query the users_roles and role_permission tables in the databaseAffected if Any authenticated user account exists in the system
-
Identify custom or contributed modules interacting with user profile formSearch module code for implementations of hook_form_alter or hook_form_FORM_ID_alter targeting user-profile-form, or look for modules that call form_load_include or trigger form rebuilding on the user profile formAffected if Any custom or contributed modules modify or rebuild the user profile form
-
Check Debian package version if applicableRun 'dpkg -l drupal7' or 'apt-cache policy drupal7' on Debian systems to determine the installed package versionAffected if The Debian drupal7 package version is earlier than the version containing the 7.44 patch
A system is affected if it runs any Drupal 7.x version before 7.44, has authenticated user accounts, and uses custom or contributed code that rebuilds the user profile form, allowing privilege escalation.
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 dataUpgrade Drupal core to version 7.44 or later to patch the vulnerability. Review all contributed and custom modules that interact with the user profile form for similar issues.
Fix this in Drupal
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6211 — 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-2016-6211 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