FortiwlcHardware / appliance · Fortinet
CVE-2016-8491
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 · uneditedThe presence of a hardcoded account named 'core' in Fortinet FortiWLC allows attackers to gain unauthorized read/write access via a remote shell.
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 confidenceFortinet FortiWLC contains a hardcoded administrative account named 'core' with a static password embedded in the firmware. Attackers can use these credentials to remotely authenticate via shell access and gain full read/write administrative control over the wireless LAN controller.
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
FortiwlcHardware / appliance
= 7.0-9-1= 7.0-10-0= 8.1-2-0= 8.1-3-2= 8.2-4-0CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Identify FortiWLC versionRun the command 'show version' or access the web UI to view the firmware version informationAffected if The installed version matches 7.0-9-1, 7.0-10-0, 8.1-2-0, 8.1-3-2, or 8.2-4-0
-
Verify 'core' administrative account existenceCheck the system user database via 'show system admin' CLI command or review /etc/passwd or equivalent user configuration files on the applianceAffected if A user account named 'core' is present in the administrative user list
-
Confirm 'core' account is enabled for authenticationReview authentication configuration using 'show system authentication' or check whether the 'core' account has active login privileges via the administrative interfaceAffected if The 'core' account is listed as an enabled administrative user with login capability
-
Inspect system logs for 'core' account activityReview authentication and system logs for any successful or failed login attempts using the 'core' accountAffected if Logs contain authentication events from the 'core' account indicating it has been used or is functional
A system is affected if it runs a FortiWLC version matching 7.0-9-1, 7.0-10-0, 8.1-2-0, 8.1-3-2, or 8.2-4-0 AND the hardcoded 'core' administrative account is present and enabled on the device.
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 dataRemove or disable the hardcoded 'core' account and update to a patched FortiWLC version that removes this backdoor. If the account is legitimately needed, implement proper credential management.
Fix this in Fortiwlc
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8491 — 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-2016-8491 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