CVE-2016-9885
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 Pivotal GemFire for PCF 1.6.x versions prior to 1.6.5 and 1.7.x versions prior to 1.7.1. The gfsh (Geode Shell) endpoint, used by operators and application developers to connect to their cluster, is unauthenticated and publicly accessible. Because HTTPS communications are terminated at the gorouter, communications from the gorouter to GemFire clusters are unencrypted. An attacker could run any command available on gfsh and could cause denial of service, lost confidentiality of data, escalate privileges, or eavesdrop on other communications between the gorouter and the cluster.
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 gfsh (Geode Shell) management endpoint in Pivotal GemFire for PCF is exposed without authentication, and internal HTTP traffic from the gorouter to GemFire clusters is unencrypted due to HTTPS termination at the gorouter. This allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary gfsh commands, leading to data theft, denial of service, or privilege escalation.
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= 1.6.0.0= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.6.3.0= 1.6.4.0= 1.7.0.0CVSS 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
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.
-
Confirm GemFire for PCF deploymentUse 'cf marketplace' or check Pivotal Ops Manager to verify if Pivotal GemFire for PCF service is installed in the environmentAffected if GemFire for PCF is present in the marketplace or installed products
-
Identify GemFire for PCF versionCheck the installed version via Pivotal Ops Manager product details or cf CLI 'cf service-brokers' output. Compare against affected versions: 1.6.0.0, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3.0, 1.6.4.0, 1.7.0.0Affected if Installed version matches one of the affected versions listed in the CVE
-
Verify gfsh endpoint accessibilityCheck network routing and security group configurations to determine if the GemFire gfsh management endpoint (typically port 7070 or custom port exposed via gorouter) is accessible from untrusted network paths without authenticationAffected if gfsh management endpoint is reachable without requiring authentication credentials
-
Inspect internal traffic encryptionReview gorouter configuration and internal routing policies to verify if traffic from the gorouter to GemFire clusters is encrypted end-to-end or if HTTPS termination occurs at the gorouter leaving internal traffic unencryptedAffected if HTTPS termination is configured at the gorouter resulting in unencrypted HTTP traffic to GemFire clusters
The environment is affected if GemFire for PCF versions 1.6.0.0 through 1.7.0.0 are deployed with the gfsh management endpoint exposed without authentication or with unencrypted internal HTTP traffic between the gorouter and GemFire.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Pivotal GemFire for PCF to version 1.6.5 or 1.7.1 or later, and/or implement network-level access controls to restrict the gfsh endpoint to authorized operators only.
Upgrade to GemFire for PCF 1.6.5 or later (or 1.7.1 or later for the 1.7.x line)
- Identify the current GemFire for PCF version by checking the Pivotal Cloud Foundry Ops Manager tile configuration
- Download the updated GemFire for PCF tile from Pivotal Network - version 1.6.5 or later for the 1.6.x track, or version 1.7.1 or later for the 1.7.x track
- In Ops Manager, upload the new tile and stage the upgrade
- Review and apply any new configuration properties required by the updated version
- Apply changes in Ops Manager to deploy the upgraded GemFire for PCF tile
- Verify the gfsh endpoint is no longer publicly accessible and requires authentication
- Test that applications can still connect to GemFire clusters after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9885 — 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-2016-9885 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