CVE-2016-9195
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 in RADIUS Change of Authorization (CoA) request processing in the Cisco Wireless LAN Controller (WLC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition by disconnecting a single connection. This vulnerability affects Cisco Wireless LAN Controller running software release 8.3.102.0. More Information: CSCvb01835. Known Fixed Releases: 8.4(1.49) 8.3(111.0) 8.3(108.0) 8.3(104.24) 8.3(102.3).
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 vulnerability in RADIUS Change of Authorization (CoA) request processing in Cisco Wireless LAN Controller allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service by disconnecting a single connection. The vulnerability exists in software release 8.3.102.0 when processing specially crafted CoA requests.
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= 8.3.102.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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.
-
Confirm Cisco WLC deviceAccess the WLC CLI and run 'show inventory' or check the web interface under Monitor to identify the device typeAffected if Device is a Cisco Wireless LAN Controller
-
Identify software versionRun 'show version' on the WLC CLI or check the web interface under Controller > General to view the firmware versionAffected if Version is exactly 8.3.102.0
-
Verify RADIUS CoA is enabledRun 'show radius auth statistics' or check the web interface under Security > RADIUS > Authentication. Look for Change of Authorization settingsAffected if RADIUS CoA processing is enabled and the version is 8.3.102.0
The environment is affected only if the Cisco WLC runs exactly version 8.3.102.0 AND has RADIUS Change of Authorization feature 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 dataUpgrade Cisco WLC to one of the fixed releases: 8.4(1.49), 8.3(111.0), 8.3(108.0), 8.3(104.24), or 8.3(102.3. Prior to upgrade, validate current version and plan maintenance window.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9195 — 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-2016-9195 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