CVE-2016-9212
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 the Decrypt for End-User Notification configuration parameter of Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Web Security Appliances could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to connect to a secure website over Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or Transport Layer Security (TLS), even if the WSA is configured to block connections to the website. Affected Products: This vulnerability affects Cisco Web Security Appliances if the HTTPS decryption options are enabled and configured for the device to block connections to certain websites. More Information: CSCvb49012. Known Affected Releases: 9.0.1-162 9.1.1-074.
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 the Decrypt for End-User Notification configuration parameter of Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Web Security Appliances allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to bypass SSL/TLS website blocking controls. When HTTPS decryption is enabled and the WSA is configured to block certain websites, an attacker can still connect to those blocked sites over SSL/TLS due to this configuration bypass.
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= 9.0.1-162= 9.1.1-074CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm device is Cisco Web Security ApplianceAccess the WSA web interface and navigate to System Administration > System Setup > Status, or run CLI command 'show hardware' to verify the appliance modelAffected if Device is not a Cisco Web Security Appliance - this CVE does not apply
-
Check AsyncOS versionRun CLI command 'version' or check via web interface at System Administration > System Setup > Status. Compare your installed version against the affected versions 9.0.1-162 and 9.1.1-074Affected if AsyncOS version matches or falls within the affected ranges 9.0.1-162 or 9.1.1-074
-
Verify HTTPS decryption is enabledCheck the HTTPS Proxy settings in the WSA web interface under Security Services > HTTPS Proxy, or use CLI command 'httpsconfig' to inspect decryption settingsAffected if HTTPS decryption is enabled - the vulnerability requires HTTPS decryption to be turned on
-
Confirm Decrypt for End-User Notification is configuredExamine the HTTPS decryption policies in the WSA web interface under Web Security Manager > HTTPS Policies, specifically checking if 'Decrypt for End-User Notification' or equivalent end-user notification with decryption is enabledAffected if Decrypt for End-User Notification feature is enabled - this is the specific configuration that triggers the bypass
-
Check for SSL/TLS blocking policiesReview access policies under Web Security Manager > Access Policies to verify if there are active policies configured to block specific HTTPS/SSL websitesAffected if Blocking policies for HTTPS/SSL sites are configured - without blocking policies, there is nothing to bypass
Environment is affected if it is a Cisco WSA with AsyncOS version matching 9.0.1-162 or 9.1.1-074, HTTPS decryption enabled, Decrypt for End-User Notification configured, and SSL/TLS blocking policies in place.
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 relevant Cisco security patch or upgrade to a fixed AsyncOS release. Until patched, consider additional network-level controls or disable HTTPS decryption if operationally feasible while understanding the security tradeoff.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9212 — 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-2016-9212 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