CVE-2016-6893
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 request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the user options page in GNU Mailman 2.1.x before 2.1.23 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that modify an option, as demonstrated by gaining access to the credentials of a victim's account.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the user options page of GNU Mailman 2.1.x before version 2.1.23 allows remote attackers to trick authenticated users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests that modify account options, potentially exposing credentials by hijacking the user's authentication.
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= 2.1= 2.1.1= 2.1.2= 2.1.3= 2.1.4= 2.1.5= 2.1.6= 2.1.8= 2.1.9= 2.1.10= 2.1.10b1= 2.1.10b3CVSS 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 the installed Mailman versionLocate the VERSION file in the Mailman installation directory (commonly /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/VERSION or /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/VERSION) and read its contents, or run 'mailman --version' if the binary is in PATHAffected if The version number found is less than 2.1.23 (for example, 2.1.22, 2.1.21, 2.1.10, 2.1.9, etc.)
-
Confirm the Mailman 2.1 branch is in useVerify the installation is GNU Mailman 2.1.x rather than Mailman 3, as this CVE applies only to the 2.1 branch. Check the product name in the VERSION file or the software version displayed in the admin web interface footerAffected if The installed product is GNU Mailman 2.1.x (any version prior to 2.1.23)
-
Locate the user options page endpointAccess the Mailman admin or user web interface and navigate to the user options or account settings page (typically at /mailman/options/<listname>/<useremail> or similar path under the Mailman web prefix)Affected if The user options page exists and is accessible to authenticated users in the deployment
If the installed GNU Mailman 2.1.x version is earlier than 2.1.23, the user options page is present and accessible, and the deployment does not have additional CSRF protection implemented, then the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 GNU Mailman 2.1.23 or later which includes anti-CSRF protection for the user options page. Implement CSRF tokens on all state-changing form submissions in the interim.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6893 — 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-2016-6893 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