dbcve.org
Big Ip Local Traffic ManagerApplication · F5

CVE-2016-7468

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-03-23
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
An unauthenticated remote attacker may be able to disrupt services on F5 BIG-IP 11.4.1 - 11.5.4 devices with maliciously crafted network traffic. This vulnerability affects virtual servers associated with TCP profiles when the BIG-IP system's tm.tcpprogressive db variable value is set to non-default setting "enabled". The default value for the tm.tcpprogressive db variable is "negotiate". An attacker may be able to disrupt traffic or cause the BIG-IP system to fail over to another device in the device group.

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 confidence

An unauthenticated remote attacker can send maliciously crafted network traffic to disrupt services on F5 BIG-IP 11.4.1 - 11.5.4 devices. The vulnerability only affects virtual servers using TCP profiles when the tm.tcpprogressive database variable is set to the non-default value 'enabled' (default is 'negotiate'). This can cause traffic disruption or trigger involuntary failover to another device in the device group.

MitigationChange the tm.tcpprogressive db variable from 'enabled' back to its default value 'negotiate', or upgrade to a patched BIG-IP version.

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
Big Ip Local Traffic ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Application Acceleration ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Advanced Firewall ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip AnalyticsApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Application Security ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Global Traffic ManagerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4
Big Ip Link ControllerApplication
Affected:= 11.4.0= 11.4.1= 11.5.0= 11.5.1= 11.5.2= 11.5.3= 11.5.4

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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. Check BIG-IP software version
    Run 'tmsh show /sys version' or 'bigpipe version' to display the installed BIG-IP version
    Affected if The version listed is 11.4.0, 11.4.1, 11.5.0, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, or 11.5.4
  2. Inspect tm.tcpprogressive database variable
    Run 'tmsh list /sys db tm.tcpprogressive' to view the current value of this database variable
    Affected if The value is set to 'enabled' (the default 'negotiate' is not affected)
  3. Verify virtual servers exist with TCP profiles
    Run 'tmsh list /ltm virtual' to list virtual servers and check their profiles configuration
    Affected if Any virtual server is configured to use a TCP profile (the vulnerability only applies when TCP profiles are in use)

You are affected if you are running version 11.4.0-11.5.4 AND have tm.tcpprogressive set to 'enabled' AND have virtual servers using TCP profiles.

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

Change the tm.tcpprogressive db variable from 'enabled' back to its default value 'negotiate', or upgrade to a patched BIG-IP version.

Fix this in Big Ip Local Traffic Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,060
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-7468 — 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-2016-7468 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