PfsenseApplication · Netgate
CVE-2018-16055
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 authenticated command injection vulnerability exists in status_interfaces.php via dhcp_relinquish_lease() in pfSense before 2.4.4 due to its passing user input from the $_POST parameters "ifdescr" and "ipv" to a shell without escaping the contents of the variables. This allows an authenticated WebGUI user with privileges for the affected page to execute commands in the context of the root user when submitting a request to relinquish a DHCP lease for an interface which is configured to obtain its address via DHCP.
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 confidenceAuthenticated command injection in pfSense's status_interfaces.php via dhcp_relinquish_lease() function allows root-level code execution through unsanitized $_POST parameters 'ifdescr' and 'ipv' passed to shell commands. An authenticated WebGUI user with page privileges can inject arbitrary shell commands.
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
PfsenseApplication
< 2.4.4CVSS 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
- 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 pfSense versionLog into the pfSense WebGUI and navigate to System > Firmware or check via console with 'pfSense -v' or 'grep -i version /etc/version'Affected if Installed version is less than 2.4.4 (e.g., 2.4.3, 2.4.2, 2.3.x, etc.)
-
Verify vulnerable script existsCheck if /usr/local/www/status_interfaces.php exists on the pfSense system via console or SSH using 'ls -la /usr/local/www/status_interfaces.php'Affected if The file exists on the system (indicates the vulnerable code is present)
-
Confirm WebGUI is accessible with user accountsVerify that the pfSense WebGUI is reachable and that there are user accounts with access to the 'Status: Interfaces' page privilegeAffected if WebGUI is exposed and user accounts exist with page access (the attacker needs authenticated access to exploit this vulnerability)
A system is affected if it runs pfSense version lower than 2.4.4, has the status_interfaces.php file present, and has authenticated WebGUI users with access to the Status > Interfaces page.
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 data2.4.4
Upgrade to pfSense 2.4.4 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, apply the vendor patch which adds proper shell escaping (escapeshellarg()) around the user-supplied parameters before shell execution.
Fix this in Pfsense
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-16055 — 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-2018-16055 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