CVE-2016-6641
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 EMC ViPR SRM before 3.7.2 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in EMC ViPR SRM's web interface allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML through unspecified input vectors. The vulnerability exists in versions prior to 3.7.2 and could allow attackers to execute malicious scripts in the context of other users' sessions.
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<= 3.7.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/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.
-
Identify the installed ViPR SRM versionAccess the ViPR SRM administrative console or use the product's built-in version check command. Common methods include: logging into the web UI and checking the 'About' or 'System Information' section, or running 'viprsrv --version' or 'product-version' from the CLI if available.Affected if The installed version is 3.7.1 or earlier (any version below 3.7.2).
-
Confirm ViPR SRM web interface is accessibleVerify that the ViPR SRM web interface is enabled and accessible on your network. This may involve checking the service status, reviewing load balancer configurations, or attempting to reach the web portal URL.Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible to users or attackers.
-
Check for authenticated user accountsReview the user directory or authentication configuration to determine if there are any user accounts configured in ViPR SRM. This includes local users, LDAP/Active Directory integrations, or other authentication sources.Affected if There are authenticated user accounts configured, as the XSS affects authenticated users.
-
Review web access logs for suspicious script injection patternsExamine ViPR SRM web server access logs and application logs for unusual HTTP requests containing JavaScript tags (<script>, javascript:, onerror=, etc.) in parameters, referrer fields, or user agent strings.Affected if Log analysis reveals injection attempts or executed XSS payloads in the context of authenticated sessions.
Your environment is affected if the installed ViPR SRM version is 3.7.1 or earlier AND the web interface is accessible to authenticated users.
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 to ViPR SRM version 3.7.2 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, implement output encoding and input validation on all user-supplied data within the web interface, particularly in areas handling authenticated user input.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6641 — 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-2016-6641 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