CVE-2016-6578
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 · uneditedCodeLathe FileCloud, version 13.0.0.32841 and earlier, contains a global cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. 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 confidenceCodeLathe FileCloud versions 13.0.0.32841 and earlier contain a global CSRF vulnerability allowing attackers to execute unauthorized actions by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests, leveraging the victim's active session.
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<= 13.0.0.32841CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Determine FileCloud versionLocate the version information in your FileCloud installation (typically accessible via admin panel, about page, or version file in the installation directory)Affected if The installed version is 13.0.0.32841 or earlier
-
Identify state-changing operationsReview the application's forms and AJAX endpoints that perform actions like user management, file operations, settings changes, or account modificationsAffected if State-changing operations exist in the application
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementationInspect the HTML forms and AJAX requests for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer tokens) - look for hidden form fields or request headers containing unique tokens that are validated server-sideAffected if No anti-CSRF tokens are found on state-changing operations, or tokens are not validated server-side
-
Verify Origin/Referer header validationTest the application's behavior when requests are submitted with missing or forged Origin/Referer headers - check if the server accepts or rejects such requestsAffected if The server accepts requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers without validation
You are affected if your FileCloud version is 13.0.0.32841 or earlier AND state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF token protection AND the server does not validate Origin/Referer headers.
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 anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing10.0 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 $11,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6578 — 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-2016-6578 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