dbcve.org
Racf ConnectorApplication · Forgerock

CVE-2016-6500

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-02-03
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 1.1.0.0 or later.
See remediation →
90/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Unspecified methods in the RACF Connector component before 1.1.1.0 in ForgeRock OpenIDM and OpenICF improperly call the SearchControls constructor with returnObjFlag set to true, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted serialized Java object, aka LDAP entry poisoning.

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 confidence

The RACF Connector component in ForgeRock OpenIDM and OpenICF before version 1.1.1.0 improperly calls the SearchControls constructor with returnObjFlag set to true. This allows the LDAP provider to return deserialized Java objects from LDAP entries, enabling remote attackers to inject malicious serialized objects into LDAP responses (LDAP entry poisoning) and achieve arbitrary code execution.

MitigationUpgrade the RACF Connector component to version 1.1.1.0 or later, which sets returnObjFlag to false to prevent deserialization of untrusted LDAP objects.

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
Racf ConnectorApplication
Affected:<= 1.1.0.0

CVSS 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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate the RACF Connector installation
    Search for JAR files named 'racf-connector' or 'forgerock-racf-connector' in the OpenIDM or OpenICF installation directory, typically under 'connectors/' or 'lib/' directories. Use command: find /path/to/openidm -name '*racf*connector*.jar' (Linux) or search in the installation folder (Windows).
    Affected if The connector JAR file is found with version 1.1.0.0 or earlier in the filename or manifest.
  2. Determine the connector version
    Extract the version from the JAR filename, or inspect the JAR manifest file (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) inside the connector JAR. You can use: unzip -p connector.jar META-INF/MANIFEST.MF | grep -i version
    Affected if Version is 1.1.0.0 or lower, or no version is displayed indicating an unpatched build.
  3. Identify LDAP configuration used by the connector
    Look for connector configuration files in the OpenIDM/conf/ or OpenICF directory, typically named 'connectors/*.json' or 'provisioner.openicf-*.json' that reference the RACF connector. Search for files containing 'racf' or 'RACF' in the name or configuration.
    Affected if A connector configuration file exists and references the RACF connector with LDAP settings.
  4. Check for vulnerable SearchControls usage in connector code
    Decompile or inspect the connector JAR for Java source code or bytecode containing 'SearchControls' and 'returnObjFlag'. Look for code patterns like 'new SearchControls()' followed by '.setReturnObjFlag(true)' or constructor calls passing 'true' as a parameter. Use: jar tf connector.jar | grep -i 'SearchControls'
    Affected if The connector code contains SearchControls with returnObjFlag explicitly set to true, or the SearchControls constructor is called without disabling object return.

You are affected if the RACF Connector is installed with version 1.1.0.0 or earlier, and the connector code uses SearchControls with returnObjFlag enabled for LDAP operations.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 1.1.0.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade the RACF Connector component to version 1.1.1.0 or later, which sets returnObjFlag to false to prevent deserialization of untrusted LDAP objects.

Fix this in Racf Connector Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,920
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,072.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6500 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-6500 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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