CVE-2016-9365
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Moxa NPort 5110 versions prior to 2.6, NPort 5130/5150 Series versions prior to 3.6, NPort 5200 Series versions prior to 2.8, NPort 5400 Series versions prior to 3.11, NPort 5600 Series versions prior to 3.7, NPort 5100A Series & NPort P5150A versions prior to 1.3, NPort 5200A Series versions prior to 1.3, NPort 5150AI-M12 Series versions prior to 1.2, NPort 5250AI-M12 Series versions prior to 1.2, NPort 5450AI-M12 Series versions prior to 1.2, NPort 5600-8-DT Series versions prior to 2.4, NPort 5600-8-DTL Series versions prior to 2.4, NPort 6x50 Series versions prior to 1.13.11, NPort IA5450A versions prior to v1.4. Requests are not verified to be intentionally submitted by the proper user (CROSS-SITE REQUEST FORGERY).
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 confidenceThe NPort device web interfaces lack anti-CSRF protections, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that execute actions when an authenticated administrator browses to attacker-controlled content. The devices do not verify that requests were intentionally submitted by the legitimate user.
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<= 2.5<= 3.5<= 2.7<= 3.10<= 3.6<= 1.2<= 1.2<= 1.2<= 1.1CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 NPort device modelAccess the device web interface or use network discovery to determine the exact model number (e.g., NPort 5100, 5200, 5400, 5600, 5100a, P5150a, 5200a, or 5x50a1 M12). The model is typically displayed on the login page or in the device status section.Affected if The device is one of the following series: NPort 5100, 5200, 5400, 5600, 5100a, P5150a, 5200a, or 5x50a1 M12.
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the System Settings or Administration section to view the firmware version. Alternatively, use the device's command-line interface or SNMP to retrieve the firmware version.Affected if The firmware version falls within any of these affected ranges: NPort 5100 Series <= 2.5 or <= 3.5; NPort 5200 Series <= 2.7; NPort 5400 Series <= 3.10; NPort 5600 Series <= 3.6; NPort 5100a Series <= 1.2; NPort P5150a Series <= 1.2; NPort 5200a Series <= 1.2; NPort 5x50a1 M12 Series <= 1.1.
-
Verify if the web management interface is enabledCheck the device configuration to confirm whether the HTTP or HTTPS web interface is turned on. This is usually found in Network Settings or Device Management sections of the web UI.Affected if The web management interface (HTTP or HTTPS) is enabled and accessible over the network.
-
Inspect web forms for anti-CSRF tokensExamine the HTML source of active web forms (such as those for configuration changes, password updates, or port settings) to determine if hidden CSRF token fields or proper Origin/Referer header validation are implemented.Affected if The web forms lack hidden CSRF token fields and the application does not validate the Origin or Referer headers on form submissions.
You are affected if your Moxa NPort device model matches one of the affected series AND your installed firmware version is at or below the specified threshold AND the web management interface is enabled.
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 dataContact Moxa for patched firmware that implements anti-CSRF tokens or origin verification. If unavailable, restrict administrative access to dedicated management networks and disable web management if not required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9365 — 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-2016-9365 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