SatelliteApplication · Redhat
CVE-2016-9593
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 · uneditedforeman-debug before version 1.15.0 is vulnerable to a flaw in foreman-debug's logging. An attacker with access to the foreman log file would be able to view passwords, allowing them to access those systems.
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 confidenceforeman-debug before version 1.15.0 contains a flaw in its logging functionality where passwords are written to log files in plain text. An attacker with read access to the foreman log file can extract these credentials and use them to gain unauthorized access to connected systems.
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
SatelliteApplication
= 6.0< 1.15.0CVSS 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 foreman-debug or Foreman versionRun 'foreman-debug --version' or check the installed package version using your system package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q foreman-debug' or 'dpkg -l foreman-debug')Affected if The installed version is earlier than 1.15.0, or for Red Hat Satellite, version 6.0
-
Confirm logging functionality is activeCheck if Foreman logging is enabled by inspecting the configuration file (typically /etc/foreman/settings.yaml or /etc/foreman/foreman.yml) for log verbosity settingsAffected if Logging is enabled and set to capture authentication-related events
-
Locate Foreman log filesIdentify log file locations - common paths include /var/log/foreman/, /var/log/foreman/production.log, or check the logging configuration for the configured log directoryAffected if Log files exist and are readable by the attacker (any non-root user with file access)
-
Search log files for plaintext credentialsUse grep or similar tools to search log files for patterns matching password strings (e.g., 'password=', 'passwd', 'credentials')Affected if Log files contain plaintext password strings in authentication logs
Environment is affected if foreman-debug or Foreman version is below 1.15.0 (or Satellite 6.0) and log files exist with plaintext credentials from authentication attempts.
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 data1.15.0
Upgrade foreman-debug to version 1.15.0 or later, which addresses the improper logging of sensitive credentials.
Fix this in Satellite
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9593 — 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-2016-9593 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