CVE-2016-8339

Exp

A buffer overflow in Redis 3.2.x prior to 3.2.4 causes arbitrary code execution when a crafted command is sent. An out of bounds write vulnerability exists in the handling of the client-output-buffer-limit option during the CONFIG SET command for the Redis data structure store. A crafted CONFIG SET command can lead to an out of bounds write potentially resulting in code execution.

Published: 2016-10-28 Last update: 2026-06-16 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Modified，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2016-8339 is rated High Exploit Risk (92.9/100): CVSS Critical severity, with high exploitation likelihood (EPSS 14.83%, 96th percentile). 1 public exploit reference(s) are indexed (Exploit-DB). EPSS rose +12.33% over the last day, indicating growing attacker interest. Public exploits are available—assess exposure, apply mitigations, and prioritize patching.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Public exploit references (Exploit-DB) for CVE-2016-8339

EDB-ID Source Kind Published Link
— nvd_ref exploit_tag Exploit-DB ↗

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2016-8339

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-06-15 2.50% 14.83% +12.33%
2 2025-07-01 3.36% 2.50% -0.86%
3 2025-04-28 — 3.36% —

Full EPSS history (11 records total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2016-8339

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
9.8 3.1 CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:H)
Serious risk that confidential data gets exposed in a big way.
Integrity (I:H)
They could widely tamper with or forge data—trust in the data is badly hurt.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
 3.9 5.9 [email protected]
6.6 3.0 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:H)
Even with access, the exploit needs extra luck, timing, or a fussy environment to actually work.
Privileges required (PR:H)
They need powerful rights—admin, root, or similar—before this pays off.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:H)
Serious risk that confidential data gets exposed in a big way.
Integrity (I:H)
They could widely tamper with or forge data—trust in the data is badly hurt.
Availability (A:H)
Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.
 0.7 5.9 [email protected]
7.5 2.0 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P Click to expand
Access vector (AV:N)
Can be exploited remotely over network reachability.
Access complexity (AC:L)
Exploitation conditions are straightforward and predictable.
Authentication (AU:N)
No authentication is required.
Confidentiality impact (C:P)
Partial confidentiality impact.
Integrity impact (I:P)
Partial integrity impact.
Availability impact (A:P)
Partial availability impact.
 10.0 6.4 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2016-8339

OS Trackers for CVE-2016-8339

vendor priority summary link
debian not yet assigned CVE-2016-8339 not yet assigned priority: Debian including 1 source packages (redis), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): resolved 5. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-8339
gentoo normal CVE-2016-8339: 1 GLSA(s) (201702-16), 1 atom(s) (dev-db/redis); latest impact normal. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CVE-2016-8339
redhat medium — https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-8339
ubuntu medium CVE-2016-8339 medium priority: Ubuntu including 1 source packages (redis), 8 status rows across 8 suites (artful, bionic, precise, trusty, upstream, xenial, yakkety, zesty): ignored 4, not-affected 3, released 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2016-8339

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2016-8339

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
redislabs redis 3.2.0 cpe:2.3:a:redislabs:redis:3.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
redislabs redis 3.2.1 cpe:2.3:a:redislabs:redis:3.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
redislabs redis 3.2.2 cpe:2.3:a:redislabs:redis:3.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
redislabs redis 3.2.3 cpe:2.3:a:redislabs:redis:3.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2016-8339

cvelogic Threat Intelligence