CVE-2016-6557
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 · uneditedIn ASUS RP-AC52 access points with firmware version 1.0.1.1s and possibly earlier, the web interface, the web interface does not sufficiently verify whether a valid request was intentionally provided by the user. An attacker can perform actions with the same permissions as a victim user, provided the victim has an active session and is induced to trigger the malicious request.
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 ASUS RP-AC52 web interface lacks CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) protection, allowing attackers to forge authenticated requests by tricking authenticated users into triggering malicious requests. This enables unauthorized actions with the victim's privileges.
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<= 1.0.1.1sall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 device modelCheck the product label on the device or access the web interface and look for the model name (RP-AC52, EA-N66, RP-N12, RP-N14, RP-N53, RP-AC56, or WMP-N12)Affected if Device is not one of these ASUS models, then CVE does not apply
-
Check firmware versionAccess the web management interface and navigate to the Firmware Upgrade or Administration section to view the installed firmware version, or check the version sticker on the deviceAffected if For RP-AC52: version is 1.0.1.1s or lower; for all other models (EA-N66, RP-N12, RP-N14, RP-N53, RP-AC56, WMP-N12): all versions are affected
-
Confirm web management interface is enabledCheck the device settings to verify that the HTTP/HTTPS web management interface is turned on and accessible on the LAN or WAN interfaceAffected if Web interface is enabled and accessible - this is required for the CSRF vulnerability to be exploitable; if the web interface is completely disabled, the attack surface does not exist
-
Verify CSRF protection is absentInspect the login page and subsequent web pages for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens (also called request verification tokens, unique tokens, or session tokens in forms); if forms submit without requiring a unique token per request, CSRF protection is likely missingAffected if No anti-CSRF tokens found in web forms or headers, confirming the vulnerability exists
Device is affected if it is an ASUS RP-AC52 (firmware 1.0.1.1s or lower) or any of the other listed models (EA-N66, RP-N12, RP-N14, RP-N53, RP-AC56, WMP-N12) and has its web management interface enabled.
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 dataUpdate to patched firmware when available. Until then, restrict administrative access to trusted networks only and ensure administrators browse unrelated sites in separate sessions/ browsers to minimize exposure to CSRF attack vectors.
- 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-2016-6557 — 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-2016-6557 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