CVE-2016-9796
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 · uneditedAlcatel-Lucent OmniVista 8770 2.0 through 3.0 exposes different ORBs interfaces, which can be queried using the GIOP protocol on TCP port 30024. An attacker can bypass authentication, and OmniVista invokes methods (AddJobSet, AddJob, and ExecuteNow) that can be used to run arbitrary commands on the server, with the privilege of NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM on the server. NOTE: The discoverer states "The vendor position is to refer to the technical guidelines of the product security deployment to mitigate this issue, which means applying proper firewall rules to prevent unauthorised clients to connect to the OmniVista server."
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 analysisA legacy NVD category covering weaknesses where permissions or privileges are assigned, checked, or dropped incorrectly, so an action ends up running with more access than it should. It is an umbrella label from older records, not a single flaw. The remedy depends on the specific case, but the throughline is least privilege with explicit, checked transitions wherever privilege changes.
General guidance for the permissions, privileges & access controls class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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= 2.0= 2.6= 3.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
dbcve · scoped- Configure a firewall or network access control list (ACL) to block all unauthorized external connections to TCP port 30024 on the OmniVista server
- Restrict access to port 30024 to only trusted management IP addresses or internal network subnets that require legitimate access to the GIOP/OmniVista services
- If possible, disable the GIOP/ORB interfaces on TCP port 30024 if they are not required for legitimate operations
- Implement network segmentation to place the OmniVista server in a dedicated, secure management network zone
- Audit and monitor firewall rules and network logs for any unauthorized connection attempts to port 30024
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $2,300. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9796 — 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-2016-9796 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