CVE-2016-9870
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 · uneditedEMC Isilon OneFS 8.0.0.0, EMC Isilon OneFS 7.2.1.0 - 7.2.1.2, EMC Isilon OneFS 7.2.0.x, EMC Isilon OneFS 7.1.1.0 - 7.1.1.10, and EMC Isilon OneFS 7.1.0.x is affected by an LDAP injection vulnerability that could potentially be exploited by a malicious user to compromise the system.
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 · moderate confidenceEMC Isilon OneFS contains an LDAP injection vulnerability where unsanitized user input in LDAP queries allows attackers to manipulate LDAP search filters. By injecting special characters or syntax into login or directory queries, a malicious authenticated user could bypass authentication controls or extract unauthorized information from the directory service.
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= 7.1.0.0= 7.1.0.1= 7.1.0.2= 7.1.0.3= 7.1.0.4= 7.1.0.5= 7.1.0.6= 7.1.1.0= 7.1.1.1= 7.1.1.2= 7.1.1.3= 7.1.1.4CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS web UI under Cluster Management > General for the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is 7.1.0.0, 7.1.0.1, 7.1.0.2, 7.1.0.3, 7.1.0.4, 7.1.0.5, 7.1.0.6, 7.1.1.0, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.3, or 7.1.1.4
-
Confirm LDAP authentication is in useCheck OneFS directory services configuration under Access > Authentication > Directory to see if LDAP/Active Directory is enabledAffected if LDAP or Active Directory authentication is configured and the OneFS version falls within the affected range listed above
-
Review LDAP query handlingExamine logs or test LDAP-bound login fields with special LDAP filter characters (such as * ( ) \0x00) to observe if input is properly escaped or rejectedAffected if Special characters in LDAP queries are not sanitized or rejected, allowing filter manipulation
A system is affected if it runs OneFS versions 7.1.0.0 through 7.1.1.4 and has LDAP or Active Directory authentication enabled, with unsanitized LDAP query input handling.
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 the vendor patch or upgrade to a non-vulnerable version (7.1.1.11+, 7.2.1.3+, 7.2.0.6+, or 8.0.0.1+). Additionally, implement strict input validation on all LDAP-bound fields and restrict LDAP query permissions where possible.
- 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-2016-9870 — 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-2016-9870 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