CVE-2016-8212
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in EMC RSA BSAFE Crypto-J versions prior to 6.2.2. There is an Improper OCSP Validation Vulnerability. OCSP responses have two time values: thisUpdate and nextUpdate. These specify a validity period; however, both values are optional. Crypto-J treats the lack of a nextUpdate as indicating that the OCSP response is valid indefinitely instead of restricting its validity for a brief period surrounding the thisUpdate time. This vulnerability is similar to the issue described in CVE-2015-4748.
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 confidenceEMC RSA BSAFE Crypto-J versions before 6.2.2 improperly validate OCSP responses by treating the absence of nextUpdate as meaning the response is valid indefinitely, rather than restricting validity to a brief period around the thisUpdate timestamp. This allows potentially stale or revoked certificate statuses to be accepted as current.
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< 6.2.2CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Locate the BSAFE Crypto-J librarySearch for JAR files named 'bsafe-crypto-j', 'rsabsafecrypto', 'dellbsafe', or similar in your application servers, lib directories, and dependency repositories. Also check Maven/Gradle dependency trees for 'com.rsa' or 'com.dell' security libraries.Affected if The library is present in your environment
-
Identify the installed versionExamine the JAR file manifest (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) for the Implementation-Version attribute, or check your build dependency declaration for the exact version number. For deployed WAR/EAR files, inspect the contained library JARs.Affected if The version is below 6.2.2 (e.g., 6.2.0, 6.1.x, 6.0.x)
-
Verify OCSP checking is enabledSearch configuration files (e.g., XML config, properties files, Java security policy files) for OCSP-related settings such as 'ocsp.enable=true', 'PKIXParameterSpec' with OCSP responder URLs, or code that sets 'CertPathValidatorException' handlers for OCSP validation.Affected if OCSP response validation is actively used by your application
You are affected if your environment contains RSA BSAFE Crypto-J or Dell Bsafe Crypto-J version below 6.2.2 AND your application performs OCSP certificate validation.
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 data6.2.2
Upgrade to RSA BSAFE Crypto-J version 6.2.2 or later, which enforces proper time-bounded validation of OCSP responses even when nextUpdate is missing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,496.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8212 — 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-2016-8212 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