CVE-2019-16877
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 · uneditedPortainer before 1.22.1 has Incorrect Access Control (issue 4 of 4).
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 confidencePortainer before 1.22.1 contains an Incorrect Access Control vulnerability, allowing unauthorized users to access privileged operations or functions within the Docker container management interface that should be restricted to authorized administrators.
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< 1.22.1CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Check Portainer version via web interfaceLog into the Portainer web UI and locate the version number, typically displayed in the footer or under 'About' or 'Settings' menuAffected if The displayed version is earlier than 1.22.1 (for example, 1.22.0, 1.21.x, or any version below 1.22.1)
-
Check Portainer version via APIMake a GET request to the Portainer API endpoint /api/system/status or /api/version (for example: curl http://<portainer-url>/api/system/status)Affected if The JSON response shows a 'Version' field with a value less than 1.22.1
-
Check Docker container image versionIf Portainer runs as a Docker container, run 'docker ps' to find the container, then 'docker inspect <container-id>' or 'docker images' to check the image tag or digestAffected if The image tag shows a version older than 1.22.1 (such as portainer:1.22.0 or portainer:latest pointing to an older build)
-
Verify Portainer service/binary versionIf Portainer is installed as a standalone binary or service, run the binary with a version flag (such as ./portainer --version) or check the installed package informationAffected if The reported version is below 1.22.1
You are affected if your installed Portainer version is anything less than 1.22.1, regardless of deployment method (Docker container, binary, or package).
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 data1.22.1
Upgrade Portainer to version 1.22.1 or later to remediate the access control issue.
- 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-2019-16877 — 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-2019-16877 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