dbcve.org
Jboss Bpm SuiteApplication · Redhat

CVE-2016-7034

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2016-09-07
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
The dashbuilder in Red Hat JBoss BPM Suite 6.3.2 does not properly handle CSRF tokens generated during an active session and includes them in query strings, which makes easier for remote attackers to (1) bypass CSRF protection mechanisms or (2) conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks by obtaining an old token.

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 confidence

In JBoss BPM Suite 6.3.2, the dashbuilder component improperly handles CSRF tokens by placing them in URL query strings instead of using more secure transmission methods like HTTP headers or POST body parameters. Additionally, the system allows reuse of expired or old tokens, enabling attackers who obtain a valid token to bypass CSRF protection mechanisms and perform unauthorized actions on behalf of authenticated users.

MitigationMigrate CSRF token transmission from query strings to HTTP headers or POST parameters, implement token expiration with one-time use validation, and consider adding token rotation on each request to prevent token reuse attacks.

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
Jboss Bpm SuiteApplication
Affected:= 6.3.2

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify JBoss BPM Suite version
    Check the installed version of JBoss BPM Suite. Common locations: check the product's about/info page, version manifest file, or run 'rpm -q jboss-bpmsuite' or similar package query command depending on your installation method.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 6.3.2 (other versions are not affected by this specific CVE)
  2. Confirm dashbuilder component is deployed
    Identify whether the dashbuilder web application is deployed and accessible. Check JBoss deployment directory or admin console for dashbuilder WAR deployment.
    Affected if dashbuilder is deployed and accessible in the environment
  3. Inspect CSRF token transmission method
    Log in to the dashbuilder application and observe network traffic or inspect form/URL generation code to determine how CSRF tokens are transmitted - whether they appear in URL query strings rather than HTTP headers or POST body parameters.
    Affected if CSRF tokens are transmitted via URL query string parameters
  4. Check token expiration and reuse validation
    Test the token reuse behavior by obtaining a valid CSRF token, then attempting to reuse that same token after it should have expired or after multiple requests. Inspect application logs or configuration for token expiration settings.
    Affected if Expired or previously-used tokens are still accepted and not rejected

Environment is affected if running JBoss BPM Suite 6.3.2 with dashbuilder deployed and CSRF tokens are transmitted via query strings or expired tokens are accepted.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Migrate CSRF token transmission from query strings to HTTP headers or POST parameters, implement token expiration with one-time use validation, and consider adding token rotation on each request to prevent token reuse attacks.

Fix this in Jboss Bpm Suite Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation24.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA8.0 h
52.0 hours of engineering $9,160
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-7034 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-7034 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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