CVE-2016-9044
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 · uneditedAn exploitable command execution vulnerability exists in Information Builders WebFOCUS Business Intelligence Portal 8.1 . A specially crafted web parameter can cause a command injection. An authenticated attacker can send a crafted web request to trigger this vulnerability.
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 · moderate confidenceWebFOCUS Business Intelligence Portal 8.1 contains a command injection vulnerability in its web parameter handling. An authenticated attacker can inject operating system commands through specially crafted requests, potentially gaining full system access.
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= 8.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Identify WebFOCUS 8.1 installationLocate WebFOCUS installation directories (commonly in C:\ibi or /opt/ibi) and check version.info or about pages via the web interface at /ibi_apps/webfocus/home.htmlAffected if The installed version is WebFOCUS 8.1 exactly
-
Verify web service is exposedConfirm the WebFOCUS web application is running and accessible on the configured HTTP/HTTPS ports (default typically 8080 or 443)Affected if The WebFOCUS web portal is reachable over the network
-
Confirm authentication is requiredTest that the web interface requires login credentials before accessing parameter-handling endpointsAffected if The web interface allows unauthenticated access to parameter-handling functionality (which would indicate the vulnerability is more easily exploitable)
-
Inspect web access logs for suspicious parameter patternsReview web server logs (typically in WebFOCUS\logs or /var/log/ibi) for unusual strings in URL parameters such as semicolons, pipe symbols, backticks, or command separators (like ; ls, | whoami, $(cmd))Affected if Logs contain requests with command injection patterns in web parameters
-
Check for unexpected outbound network connectionsUse netstat or equivalent to list established connections from the WebFOCUS server to unknown external addresses, especially on uncommon portsAffected if The server has outbound connections to unexpected external addresses indicating potential post-exploitation activity
You are affected if WebFOCUS 8.1 is installed with its web interface accessible and you observe command injection patterns in web logs or unexpected network behavior.
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 patches for WebFOCUS 8.1 and implement strict input validation on all web parameters to prevent command injection. Consider web application firewall rules as an interim control.
- Consultation4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9044 — 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-2016-9044 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