CVE-2016-9260
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 · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Tenable Nessus before 6.9 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to handling of .nessus files.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting vulnerability in Tenable Nessus versions before 6.9 allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML through malicious .nessus files (the XML-based scan result format used by Nessus). When other users view or process these crafted files through the Nessus interface, the embedded scripts execute in their browser sessions.
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<= 6.8.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Determine Nessus versionAccess the Nessus web interface and check the version displayed in the 'About' page, or run 'nessuscli --version' from the command line on the Nessus serverAffected if The installed version is 6.8.1 or earlier (versions before 6.9 are vulnerable)
-
Check if .nessus file imports are permittedIn the Nessus web interface, navigate to the Scan Imports or Upload functionality. Look for the ability to upload .nessus XML files. From CLI, check if the import directory accepts new filesAffected if Users with at least limited privileges can upload or import .nessus files to the Nessus server
-
Verify multi-user access is enabledIn Nessus, go to 'Users' or 'Administration' > 'Users' to see if more than one user account exists or if shared scan folders are accessible to multiple usersAffected if Multiple authenticated users have access to the same Nessus instance, as the XSS triggers when other users view the maliciously crafted .nessus file
-
Review audit logs for suspicious .nessus importsCheck Nessus audit logs or the scan history for recent imports of .nessus files from users, particularly looking for files with unexpected XML structures or contentAffected if There are .nessus file imports in the logs from untrusted or external sources
You are affected if Nessus version 6.8.1 or earlier is running AND the system allows authenticated users to import .nessus files that can be viewed or processed by other users.
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 Nessus to version 6.9 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Consider restricting .nessus file imports from untrusted sources and validating input even for authenticated users.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9260 — 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-2016-9260 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