CVE-2019-16300
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 Open Network Operating System (ONOS) 1.14. In the access control application (org.onosproject.acl), the host event listener does not handle the following event types: HOST_REMOVED. In combination with other applications, this could lead to the absence of intended code execution.
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 confidenceIn ONOS 1.14, the access control application's host event listener fails to handle HOST_REMOVED event types. When hosts are removed from the network, the ACL application does not properly process these events, potentially causing stale access control entries or inconsistent state that could be exploited in combination with other applications.
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= 1.14.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify ONOS version is 1.14.0Run 'onos-version' command or check the /opt/onos/version file. Alternatively, access the ONOS CLI and run 'version' or check the Karaf shell banner on startup.Affected if The installed ONOS version equals exactly 1.14.0
-
Confirm ACL application is activeAccess ONOS CLI (onos -p <port> <node>) and run 'app -s -a' to list active applications. Look for 'org.onosproject.acl' in the active list.Affected if The ACL application (org.onosproject.acl) is installed and active
-
Check for stale ACL entriesIn ONOS CLI, run 'acl -c' to list ACL rules. Compare the source/destination host entries against current hosts shown by 'hosts' command. Look for ACL entries referencing hosts that no longer appear in the host inventory.Affected if ACL rules exist for hosts that are no longer present in the network inventory
-
Verify HOST_REMOVED event handling behaviorEnable debug logging for ACL app via 'log:set DEBUG org.onosproject.acl' in ONOS CLI, then remove a test host from the network. Observe if ACL entries are cleaned up automatically. Check via 'acl' command before and after host removal.Affected if Removing a host does not trigger removal of its corresponding ACL entries, leaving stale rules in place
You are affected if running ONOS 1.14.0 with the ACL application active and stale host-based ACL entries remain after hosts are removed from the network.
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 dataImplement proper HOST_REMOVED event handling in the ACL application's host event listener to ensure clean removal of host-related access control rules when hosts leave the network.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-16300 — 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-2019-16300 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