OpenstackApplication · Redhat
CVE-2016-6519
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 "Shares" overview in Openstack Manila before 2.5.1 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the Metadata field in the "Create Share" 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 confidenceStored XSS vulnerability in OpenStack Manila's Shares overview. The Metadata field in the 'Create Share' form does not properly sanitize user input, allowing authenticated users to inject malicious JavaScript or HTML that executes when other users view the Shares overview page.
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
OpenstackApplication
= 7.0= 8= 9<= 2.5CVSS 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.
-
Check OpenStack Manila versionRun 'manila --version' or check the installed package version via package manager (e.g., 'rpm -qa | grep manila' or 'pip show manila')Affected if Version is 2.5 or lower, or if Manila package version cannot be determined but is known to be from the <= 2.5 release line
-
Confirm Manila Shares service is enabledCheck OpenStack service list via 'manila service-list' or Horizon dashboard service status to verify the Shares service is active and accessibleAffected if The Shares service is running and users have access to the Shares overview UI
-
Verify Create Share form accessAccess the Create Share form in Horizon dashboard under Project > Shares > Create Share, or via manila API endpoint to confirm the Metadata field is exposedAffected if Users can access the Create Share form and the Metadata field is present and functional
-
Check for existing share metadata entriesRun 'manila list' to get share IDs, then 'manila show <share_id>' to inspect metadata fields, or query the Manila database directly for entries in the shares table with non-empty metadataAffected if Any shares exist with metadata that may contain unsanitized user input from before the patch
User is affected if OpenStack Manila version is 2.5 or lower AND the Shares service is enabled with user access to the Metadata field in the Create Share form.
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 OpenStack Manila to version 2.5.1 or later, which contains the fix. Alternatively, apply input validation and output encoding to the Metadata field in the Shares creation form.
Fix this in Openstack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6519 — 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-2016-6519 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