Netscaler Application Delivery Controller FirmwareOperating system · Citrix
CVE-2016-9028
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 · uneditedUnauthorized redirect vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler ADC before 10.1 135.8, 10.5 61.11, 11.0 65.31/65.35F and 11.1 47.14 allows a remote attacker to steal session cookies of a legitimate AAA user via manipulation of Host header.
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 confidenceHost header injection vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler ADC allows remote attackers to manipulate the Host header in HTTP requests, causing the application to generate redirect responses to attacker-controlled domains. This enables theft of session cookies from legitimate AAA (authentication) users who follow the malicious redirect.
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
Netscaler Application Delivery Controller FirmwareOperating system
<= 10.1= 10.5= 11.0= 11.1CVSS 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.
-
Determine NetScaler ADC firmware versionLog into the NetScaler command-line interface and run 'show version' or 'nsversion' to display the installed firmware version.Affected if The firmware version is 10.1 and below, exactly 10.5, exactly 11.0, or exactly 11.1 (compare against the affected ranges provided).
-
Confirm AAA authentication feature is enabledRun 'show aaa' or 'show aaa parameter' from the NetScaler CLI to check if AAA (authentication, authorization, and auditing) is configured and active.Affected if AAA authentication is enabled and the device is running an affected firmware version listed above.
-
Inspect Host header validation policyRun 'show rewrite policy' or 'show responder policy' to check if any policies exist that validate or filter the Host header in HTTP requests.Affected if No Host header validation policies are configured and the device is running an affected firmware version.
You are affected if your NetScaler ADC runs firmware version 10.1 or lower, 10.5, 11.0, or 11.1, and has AAA authentication enabled with no Host header validation policies configured.
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 the vendor-supplied patches (10.1 135.8+, 10.5 61.11+, 11.0 65.31/65.35F+, 11.1 47.14+) to Citrix NetScaler ADC. Additionally, configure WAF rules or NetScaler policies to validate and reject unexpected Host header values, and enable secure cookie flags (HttpOnly, Secure) for AAA session cookies.
Fix this in Netscaler Application Delivery Controller Firmware
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9028 — 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-2016-9028 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