Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication · F5
CVE-2016-9257
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 APM 12.0.0 through 12.1.2, non-authenticated users may be able to inject JavaScript into a request that will then be rendered and executed in the context of the Administrative user when the Administrative user is viewing the Access System Logs, allowing the non-authenticated user to carry out a Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attack against the Administrative user.
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 APM versions 12.0.0-12.1.2 contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability where unauthenticated attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into requests that execute when administrative users view the Access System Logs.
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
Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication
= 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 APM module is installedRun 'tmsh list sys module' or check the BIG-IP web UI under System > Software Management > ISO Image to see if the APM module is provisionedAffected if APM module is not listed or not provisioned, the system is not affected by this specific APM vulnerability
-
Check BIG-IP APM versionRun 'tmsh show sys version' or view the version in the web UI under Dashboard > Software Version. Identify the exact APM version numberAffected if Version is 12.0.0, 12.1.0, 12.1.1, or 12.1.2 - these are the affected versions per the CVE
-
Verify Access Policy Manager service is runningRun 'tmsh list apm' or check the APM status page in the web UI under Access Policy > GeneralAffected if APM service is active and accessible - the XSS payload would execute when logs are viewed
-
Check if Access System Logs feature is accessibleNavigate to Access Policy > Logs > Access System Logs in the web UI, or check via 'tmsh list apm log' configurationAffected if The log viewing interface is accessible to administrative users - this is where the stored XSS would trigger when they view logs
If BIG-IP APM version is 12.0.0-12.1.2 and the Access System Logs feature is accessible to administrative users, the environment is affected by this stored XSS vulnerability.
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 BIG-IP APM software updates (12.1.3 or later, or appropriate hotfix) to remediate this vulnerability.
Fix this in Big Ip Access Policy Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2016-9257 — 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-2016-9257 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