CVE-2016-6899
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 · uneditedThe Intelligent Baseboard Management Controller (iBMC) in Huawei RH1288 V3 servers with software before V100R003C00SPC613, RH2288 V3 servers with software before V100R003C00SPC617, RH2288H V3 servers with software before V100R003C00SPC515, RH5885 V3 servers with software before V100R003C10SPC102, and XH620 V3, XH622 V3, and XH628 V3 servers with software before V100R003C00SPC610 might allow remote attackers to decrypt encrypted data and consequently obtain sensitive information by leveraging selection of an insecure SSL encryption algorithm.
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 Intelligent Baseboard Management Controller (iBMC) web interface on affected Huawei RH1288 V3, RH2288 V3, RH2288H V3, RH5885 V3, and XH620/622/628 V3 servers supports weak or insecure SSL encryption algorithms (such as weak cipher suites), which could allow remote attackers to decrypt encrypted data in transit and obtain sensitive information like administrative credentials.
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= v100r003c01= v100r003c00= v100r003c00= v100r003c00= v100r003c00= v100r003c00= v100r003c00CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 iBMC firmware version via CLILog into the iBMC CLI using IPMI or Redfish and run the command to display firmware version, typically 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <iBMC_IP> -U <user> -P <pass> raw command' or through the iBMC web interface under System Information or Firmware Information.Affected if The displayed firmware version matches exactly one of the affected versions: v100r003c01 (RH5885 V3) or v100r003c00 (RH1288 V3, RH2288 V3, RH2288H V3, XH620 V3, XH622 V3, XH628 V3).
-
Identify server modelConfirm the exact server model by checking the system label, BIOS, or iBMC interface. Different models have different affected version strings.Affected if The server is one of: RH1288 V3, RH2288 V3, RH2288H V3, RH5885 V3, XH620 V3, XH622 V3, or XH628 V3.
-
Scan iBMC web interface for weak SSL cipher supportUse an SSL/TLS scanning tool such as sslscan, nmap with ssl-enum-ciphers, or test-ssl.sh against the iBMC web interface HTTPS port (typically port 443). Look for the presence of weak cipher suites such as SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, or known weak ciphers like EXPORT, NULL, or low-bit-length ciphers.Affected if The SSL scan reveals support for deprecated protocols (SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1) or weak cipher suites including EXPORT, NULL, or ciphers with key lengths below 128 bits.
-
Verify iBMC SSL configuration via iBMC CLIAccess the iBMC CLI and check the SSL/TLS configuration settings if available. Use commands like 'ipmitool' or the iBMC web interface to view the cipher list or security configuration. Look for configuration options that control allowed cipher suites.Affected if Weak or insecure cipher suites are explicitly enabled or listed in the accepted ciphers configuration.
A user is affected if their server model is RH1288 V3, RH2288 V3, RH2288H V3, RH5885 V3, XH620 V3, XH622 V3, or XH628 V3 with firmware version v100r003c00 or v100r003c01, AND the iBMC web interface accepts weak SSL cipher suites or deprecated TLS protocols.
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 iBMC firmware to the specified version for each model (V100R003C00SPC613 or later for RH1288 V3, V100R003C00SPC617 or later for RH2288 V3, etc.) to disable support for insecure SSL algorithms.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6899 — 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-2016-6899 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