dbcve.org
LynxApplication

CVE-2016-9179

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2016-12-22
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
lynx: It was found that Lynx doesn't parse the authority component of the URL correctly when the host name part ends with '?', and could instead be tricked into connecting to a different host.

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 confidence

Lynx contains a URL parsing vulnerability where the authority component is incorrectly handled when the hostname ends with '?'. This allows an attacker to craft URLs that appear to point to one host but actually connect to a different host, enabling hostname spoofing or potential SSRF-like attacks.

MitigationUpgrade to a patched version of Lynx. Until then, avoid clicking untrusted URLs containing '?' in the hostname portion and implement URL validation at proxy/gateway levels.

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
LynxApplication
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check if Lynx is installed
    Run `which lynx` or `lynx --version` to confirm Lynx is present on the system
    Affected if Lynx is installed - the vulnerability affects all versions of Lynx
  2. Verify Lynx version
    Run `lynx --version` to identify the specific version installed
    Affected if Any version of Lynx is installed - all versions are affected according to the CVE
  3. Test URL parsing with hostname ending in question mark
    Attempt to process a URL where the hostname ends with '?' (e.g., `http://example.com?/http://evil.com/`) using Lynx and observe whether it resolves to the correct or incorrect host
    Affected if Lynx resolves the URL to a different host than intended, demonstrating the authority component parsing flaw

If Lynx is installed on the system, the environment is affected because all versions of Lynx contain this URL parsing vulnerability that allows hostname spoofing when the hostname ends with '?'.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to a patched version of Lynx. Until then, avoid clicking untrusted URLs containing '?' in the hostname portion and implement URL validation at proxy/gateway levels.

Fix this in Lynx Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,060
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9179 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-9179 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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