FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2016-6342
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 · uneditedelog 3.1.1 allows remote attackers to post data as any username in the logbook.
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 confidenceThe elog 3.1.1 logbook application contains an authentication/authorization bypass vulnerability where the posting mechanism does not properly validate that the requesting user matches the username under which data is being posted. This allows any remote attacker to submit logbook entries under arbitrary usernames.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 24= 3.1.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 if Elog is installedCheck for the elog package using the system package manager: on Fedora/RHEL run 'rpm -qa | grep -i elog' or 'dnf list installed elog'. For other systems, look for the elog binary or web files in common locations like /usr/bin/elog, /opt/elog, or the application's web directory.Affected if The elog package or installation is found on the system.
-
Determine the installed Elog versionRun 'rpm -q elog' on Fedora to get the exact version number. If installed from source, check the application's version string by accessing the web interface or examining the source files for a version marker.Affected if The installed version matches 3.1.1 or falls within the affected range.
-
Verify the Elog web service is accessibleCheck if the Elog HTTP service is running and listening on its configured port (commonly port 8080 or port 80). Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "8080|80"' or 'ss -tlnp' to identify listening services. Attempt to access the web interface via curl or a browser.Affected if The Elog web interface is reachable over the network.
-
Confirm posting functionality is enabledExamine the Elog configuration file (typicallyelog.cfg or the application's configuration) to verify that the logbook posting feature is not explicitly disabled. Check for settings related to 'allow_posts', 'public_posts', or similar authorization controls.Affected if Posting is permitted and the application accepts user submissions without requiring strong server-side username validation.
The system is affected if Elog version 3.1.1 is installed and its web-based posting interface is accessible without proper server-side validation of the authenticated username against the posted username.
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 proper server-side validation to ensure users can only post entries under their own authenticated username. Require valid session/token authentication for all posting operations and reject any request attempting to specify a different username than the authenticated user.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6342 — 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-2016-6342 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