Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2016-8632
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 tipc_msg_build function in net/tipc/msg.c in the Linux kernel through 4.8.11 does not validate the relationship between the minimum fragment length and the maximum packet size, which allows local users to gain privileges or cause a denial of service (heap-based buffer overflow) by leveraging the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability.
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 confidenceThe tipc_msg_build function in net/tipc/msg.c in the Linux kernel through 4.8.11 fails to validate the relationship between minimum fragment length and maximum packet size. This allows local users with CAP_NET_ADMIN capability to trigger a heap-based buffer overflow, potentially leading to privilege escalation or denial of service.
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
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 2.6.16, < 3.2.85>= 3.3, < 3.16.40>= 3.17, < 4.1.37>= 4.2, < 4.4.65>= 4.5, < 4.8.14CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Check your kernel version against the affected rangesRun `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version` to obtain the kernel version, then compare it to these ranges: >= 2.6.16 and < 3.2.85; >= 3.3 and < 3.16.40; >= 3.17 and < 4.1.37; >= 4.2 and < 4.4.65; >= 4.5 and < 4.8.14Affected if The installed kernel version falls within any of the affected ranges listed above
-
Determine if the TIPC kernel module is loadedCheck if the TIPC subsystem is active by running `lsmod | grep tipc` or by examining if /proc/net/tipc existsAffected if The TIPC module is loaded and the kernel version is within the affected ranges
-
Identify processes holding CAP_NET_ADMIN capabilityUse `getcap -r /` or examine capability databases to list processes with CAP_NET_ADMIN, or review which users/groups have been granted this capabilityAffected if Any untrusted process or user possesses CAP_NET_ADMIN capability while the kernel and TIPC are in the affected configuration
You are affected if your kernel version is within the specified vulnerable ranges AND the TIPC subsystem is active AND untrusted users or processes hold CAP_NET_ADMIN capability.
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 data3.2.853.16.404.1.37
Apply a kernel security update beyond version 4.8.11 that addresses this validation bypass. If immediate patching is not feasible, review whether the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability is necessary for affected processes and restrict it accordingly.
Fix this in Linux Kernel
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8632 — 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-2016-8632 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