CVE-2016-8229
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 · uneditedA cross-site request forgery vulnerability in Lenovo Service Bridge before version 4 could be exploited by an attacker with access to the DHCP server used by the system where LSB is installed.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Lenovo Service Bridge versions prior to version 4. An attacker with network-level access to the DHCP server serving the target system could potentially inject malicious requests through the victim's browser to perform unintended actions within the LSB 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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Lenovo Service Bridge is installedCheck the system's installed programs list (Windows: Programs and Features, or run 'Get-WmiObject -Class Win32_Product' via PowerShell). Look for any Lenovo Service Bridge entry.Affected if Lenovo Service Bridge appears in the installed programs list
-
Identify the installed versionRight-click the Lenovo Service Bridge application or its shortcut, select Properties, and check the Version field in the Details tab. Alternatively, check the executable file properties of the LSB installation directory.Affected if The version number shown is less than 4.0 (for example, 3.x, 2.x, or 1.x)
-
Verify the application is accessibleCheck if the Lenovo Service Bridge service is running or if the application can be launched. Look for the LSB process in Task Manager or check services.msc for a Lenovo Service Bridge entry.Affected if The application is installed and can be accessed or is currently running
-
Assess network exposureDetermine whether the system is on a network where an attacker could have network-level access to the DHCP server. This is an environmental factor that increases exploitability but does not change whether the vulnerable software is present.Affected if The system is on a network where untrusted parties could interact with DHCP serving that network segment
A user is affected if Lenovo Service Bridge version 3.x or earlier is installed and the application is accessible, regardless of network configuration, because the CSRF protection is missing in versions prior to 4.
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 dataUpgrade Lenovo Service Bridge to version 4 or later, which includes proper CSRF protection mechanisms. Additionally, network segmentation and access controls on DHCP servers should be reviewed to limit exposure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,320.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8229 — 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-2016-8229 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