CVE-2016-8634
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 vulnerability was found in foreman 1.14.0. When creating an organization or location in Foreman, if the name contains HTML then the second step of the wizard (/organizations/id/step2) will render the HTML. This occurs in the alertbox on the page. The result is a stored XSS attack if an organization/location with HTML in the name is created, then a user is linked directly to this URL.
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 confidenceA stored XSS vulnerability in Foreman 1.14.0 allows malicious HTML/JavaScript to be injected into organization or location names. When a user navigates to step 2 of the wizard (/organizations/id/step2), the unsanitized name is rendered in an alertbox, executing any embedded scripts. The attack persists in the database and triggers when users visit the specific URL.
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= 1.14.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Verify Foreman versionCheck the installed Foreman version by accessing the About page in the web UI or running `foreman --version` from the command lineAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.14.0
-
Inspect organization names in databaseQuery the database for organizations table: `SELECT id, name FROM organizations;` Examine names for HTML tags like `<script>`, `javascript:`, or HTML elementsAffected if Any organization name contains raw HTML tags or JavaScript code such as `<script>` or `onerror=` attributes
-
Inspect location names in databaseQuery the database for locations table: `SELECT id, name FROM locations;` Examine names for HTML tags or suspicious patternsAffected if Any location name contains raw HTML tags or JavaScript code such as `<script>` or event handlers like `onclick=`
-
Test step2 endpoint renderingNavigate to /organizations/1/step2 (or any existing organization ID) in a browser and view page source to see if organization name is rendered without escapingAffected if The organization name appears as raw HTML in the page without being entity-encoded (e.g., `<script>` appears literally in the DOM)
You are affected if Foreman version is 1.14.0 AND any organization or location entry contains malicious HTML/JavaScript in its name that renders unsanitized on the step2 page.
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 to a patched version of Foreman that implements proper server-side HTML escaping on organization/location name fields before rendering, or apply input validation to reject HTML tags at creation time.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8634 — 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-2016-8634 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