CVE-2016-8369
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 Lynxspring JENEsys BAS Bridge versions 1.1.8 and older. The application does not sufficiently verify if a request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request (CROSS-SITE REQUEST FORGERY).
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 confidenceThe Lynxspring JENEsys BAS Bridge versions 1.1.8 and older suffers from a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability where the application fails to verify that requests originate from the legitimate authenticated user, allowing attackers to induce victims into performing unintended state-changing actions.
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<= 1.1.8CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed JENEsys BAS Bridge versionAccess the web interface or check system files for the product version information. Typically found in the application admin panel, about page, or version file in the installation directory.Affected if The installed version is 1.1.8 or any earlier version (e.g., 1.1.7, 1.1.6, 1.0.x)
-
Verify the application handles authenticated sessionsConfirm the web application uses authentication for state-changing operations such as configuration changes, user management, or device control.Affected if The application requires login and performs actions on behalf of authenticated users without additional protections
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementationInspect HTML forms and AJAX requests in the web interface. Look for hidden form fields or request headers containing anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing operations (POST, PUT, DELETE requests).Affected if State-changing operations lack anti-CSRF tokens or unique session identifiers
-
Verify Origin/Referer header validationSubmit a state-changing request with a mismatched or missing Origin/Referer header (e.g., from a different domain) and observe if the application accepts or rejects it.Affected if The application accepts requests without validating Origin or Referer headers
You are affected if the installed JENEsys BAS Bridge version is 1.1.8 or older AND the application lacks anti-CSRF protections on state-changing operations.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers to ensure requests are intentionally initiated by the user.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8369 — 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-2016-8369 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