Intercloud FabricApplication · Cisco
CVE-2016-9217
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 Cisco Intercloud Fabric for Business and Cisco Intercloud Fabric for Providers could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to connect to the database used by these products. More Information: CSCus99394. Known Affected Releases: 7.3(0)ZN(0.99).
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in Cisco Intercloud Fabric allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to directly connect to the backend database used by the product. The lack of authentication on the database interface permits unauthorized access to sensitive data stored within the system.
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
Intercloud FabricApplication
= 2.2.1_base= 2.3.1_base= 3.1.1_baseCVSS 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:3.0/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 Cisco Intercloud Fabric installationCheck if Cisco Intercloud Fabric is installed in your environment by reviewing installed software or consulting system inventory documentationAffected if The product Cisco Intercloud Fabric is present
-
Determine installed versionLocate the installed version of Cisco Intercloud Fabric using system documentation, software inventory, or by querying the system for its version numberAffected if The installed version matches exactly 2.2.1_base, 2.3.1_base, or 3.1.1_base
-
Verify database port accessibilityIdentify and inspect network listeners for database services (commonly MongoDB on ports 27017-27019 or similar) that the Intercloud Fabric backend uses; check if these ports are exposed to unauthorized network segmentsAffected if Database ports used by Intercloud Fabric are accessible from untrusted network segments without authentication requirements
You are affected if Cisco Intercloud Fabric version 2.2.1_base, 2.3.1_base, or 3.1.1_base is installed AND the backend database interface is network-accessible without authentication.
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 appropriate Cisco patch or upgrade to a fixed release. If no patch is available, restrict network access to the database ports at the network boundary and implement additional authentication controls per Cisco's guidance (CSCus99394).
Fix this in Intercloud Fabric
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9217 — 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-2016-9217 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