CVE-2016-9587

Exp

Ansible before versions 2.1.4, 2.2.1 is vulnerable to an improper input validation in Ansible's handling of data sent from client systems. An attacker with control over a client system being managed by Ansible and the ability to send facts back to the Ansible server could use this flaw to execute arbitrary code on the Ansible server using the Ansible server privileges.

Published: 2018-04-24 Last update: 2024-11-21 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Modified，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2016-9587 is rated High Exploit Risk (76.7/100): CVSS High severity, with medium exploitation likelihood (EPSS 3.04%). 2 public exploit reference(s) are indexed (Exploit-DB). 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-2016-9587

EDB-ID Source Kind Published Link
41013 exploit_db edb 2017-01-09 Exploit-DB ↗
— nvd_ref exploit_tag Exploit-DB ↗

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2016-9587

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 2026-04-21 4.08% 3.04% -1.03%
2 2026-02-20 3.79% 4.08% +0.29%
3 2026-01-17 — 3.79% —

Full EPSS history (27 records total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2016-9587

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
8.1 3.1 HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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:H)
Even with access, the exploit needs extra luck, timing, or a fussy environment to actually work.
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.
 2.2 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]
9.3 2.0 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C Click to expand
Access vector (AV:N)
Can be exploited remotely over network reachability.
Access complexity (AC:M)
Exploitation needs some favorable conditions, but not exceptional ones.
Authentication (AU:N)
No authentication is required.
Confidentiality impact (C:C)
Complete confidentiality impact.
Integrity impact (I:C)
Complete integrity impact.
Availability impact (A:C)
Complete availability impact.
 8.6 10.0 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2016-9587

GitHub Security Advisory for CVE-2016-9587

GHSA-m956-frf4-m2wr · Severity: critical · Ecosystem: pip — Ansible is vulnerable to an improper input validation in Ansible's handling of data sent from client systems

OS Trackers for CVE-2016-9587

vendor priority summary link
debian not yet assigned CVE-2016-9587 not yet assigned priority: Debian including 1 source packages (ansible), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): resolved 5. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-9587
gentoo normal CVE-2016-9587: 1 GLSA(s) (201701-77), 1 atom(s) (app-admin/ansible); latest impact normal. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CVE-2016-9587
redhat high — https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-9587
suse high CVE-2016-9587 severity important: SUSE including 18 source package names (ansible-10-10.6.0-1.1, ansible-11-11.11.0-1.1, …), 28 product×package rows across 13 product lines (HPE Helion OpenStack 8, SUSE Linux Enterprise Module for Open Buildservice Development Tools 15 SP7, … (13 product lines)): Fixed 28. https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-9587/
ubuntu medium CVE-2016-9587 medium priority: Ubuntu including 1 source packages (ansible), 8 status rows across 8 suites (artful, bionic, precise, trusty, upstream, xenial, yakkety, zesty): ignored 3, not-affected 2, released 2, DNE 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2016-9587

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2016-9587

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
redhat ansible < 2.1.4 cpe:2.3:a:redhat:ansible:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
ansible ansible < 2.2.1 cpe:2.3:a:ansible:ansible:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
redhat openstack 11 cpe:2.3:a:redhat:openstack:11:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2016-9587

cvelogic Threat Intelligence