CVE-2016-8012
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 · uneditedAccess control vulnerability in Intel Security Data Loss Prevention Endpoint (DLPe) 9.4.200 and 9.3.600 allows authenticated users with Read-Write-Execute permissions to inject hook DLLs into other processes via pages in the target process memory get.
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 confidenceAccess control vulnerability in Intel Security Data Loss Prevention Endpoint allows authenticated users with Read-Write-Execute permissions to inject hook DLLs into other processes via memory page manipulation. This represents a privilege escalation issue where properly authenticated users can bypass process isolation boundaries within the DLPe application.
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>= 9.3.0, <= 9.3.600>= 9.4.0, <= 9.4.200CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Confirm McAfee/Intel Security DLP Endpoint is installedLocate the DLP Endpoint installation via program files directory, or query installed software inventory for 'Data Loss Prevention' or 'DLPe'Affected if The software is not present on the system, then not affected by this CVE
-
Identify installed DLP Endpoint versionCheck the version of the installed DLP Endpoint software (typically via program properties, registry, or product console)Affected if Version falls within 9.3.0 through 9.3.600 OR 9.4.0 through 9.4.200 - these ranges are vulnerable
-
Verify Read-Write-Execute permission configurationReview DLP Endpoint access control permissions to determine if standard authenticated users are granted Read-Write-Execute permissionsAffected if Users with Read-Write-Execute permissions exist in the DLP configuration - this permission level enables the exploitation path described in the CVE
-
Monitor for DLL injection indicatorsExamine process activity for unexpected DLL loading or hook DLL injection into DLPe-related processes, particularly via memory page manipulationAffected if Suspicious DLL injection or memory page modifications are observed in DLPe processes - indicates active exploitation of this vulnerability
System is affected if McAfee/Intel Security DLP Endpoint versions 9.3.0-9.3.600 or 9.4.0-9.4.200 are installed AND users with Read-Write-Execute permissions exist in the DLP access control configuration.
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 dataApply vendor-provided patches for DLPe versions 9.4.200 and 9.3.600. Until patched, restrict administrative permissions and monitor for suspicious DLL injection activity.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8012 — 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-2016-8012 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