CVE-2016-9256
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 · uneditedIn F5 BIG-IP 12.1.0 through 12.1.2, permissions enforced by iControl can lag behind the actual permissions assigned to a user if the role_map is not reloaded between the time the permissions are changed and the time of the user's next request. This is a race condition that occurs rarely in normal usage; the typical period in which this is possible is limited to at most a few seconds after the permission change.
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 confidenceF5 BIG-IP iControl has a race condition where permission enforcement can lag behind actual user permissions if the role_map isn't reloaded between permission changes and the user's next request. This creates a brief window (seconds) where users may retain access they should no longer have.
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= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2= 12.0.0= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 the installed BIG-IP versionRun `tmsh show /sys version` or check the BIG-IP web UI (System > Software > Image) to determine the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is 12.0.0, 12.1.0, 12.1.1, or 12.1.2
-
Confirm iControl API is enabledCheck if the iControl REST API service is running via `tmsh show /sys service iControlREST` or by verifying the management interface accepts API requestsAffected if iControl REST API is exposed and accessible (port 443 or 8443 on the management IP or self IP)
-
Identify user permission change activityReview authentication and authorization logs in /var/log/audit for recent role or permission modifications (such as changes to user roles, partition access, or administrative privilege changes)Affected if There are recent user permission or role changes performed in the system
The environment is affected if BIG-IP is running version 12.0.0 through 12.1.2 and iControl is accessible while user permission changes have been made recently.
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 F5 security update for BIG-IP 12.1.x to address the race condition in role_map reloading. Monitor for immediate permission changes taking effect after the update.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9256 — 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-2016-9256 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