CVE-2016-8796
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 · uneditedHuawei USG9520 V300R001C01, USG9560 V300R001C01, and USG9580 V300R001C01 allow unauthenticated attackers to send abnormal DHCP request packets to the affected products to trigger a DoS condition.
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 confidenceThis is a denial-of-service vulnerability in Huawei USG9500 series firewall products (USG9520, USG9560, USG9580) running firmware V300R001C01. Unauthenticated remote attackers can send specially crafted abnormal DHCP request packets to the affected devices, causing them to crash or become unresponsive, resulting in a 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= v300r001c01= v300r001c01= v300r001c01CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 USG modelLog into the device CLI and run 'display device information' or check the device nameplate/model number to confirm it is a USG9520, USG9560, or USG9580Affected if The model is not one of these three, the device is not affected by this CVE
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the device CLI and run 'display version' or 'display firmware version' to identify the installed firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is not exactly V300R001C01, the device is not affected by this CVE
-
Confirm DHCP feature statusIn the device CLI, run 'display service-config' or check the DHCP service configuration using 'display ip interface' to see if DHCP processing is enabled on any interfaceAffected if DHCP is not configured or the device does not process DHCP packets, the attack vector may not be reachable
You are affected only if you have a USG9520, USG9560, or USG9580 device running exactly firmware version V300R001C01 with DHCP processing enabled.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied firmware patches when available; meanwhile, implement network-level filtering to block abnormal DHCP packets at perimeter defenses and restrict management interface exposure to trusted networks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8796 — 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-2016-8796 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