CVE-2016-3427
Redhat Enterprise Linux Eus 6.7 … 7.7
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2016-3427 is a critical-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux Eus. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2016-3427 is an unspecified vulnerability affecting Oracle Java SE 6u113, 7u99, and 8u77, Java SE Embedded 8u77, and JRockit R28.3.9. It is tied to the JMX component and carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, reflecting the potential for complete loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The associated CWEs point to improper access control with no further technical detail provided in the advisory.
Remote attackers can exploit the flaw over the network without authentication or user interaction. Successful exploitation grants the ability to fully compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected Java installations, consistent with the high-impact metrics in the CVSS vector.
The listed references consist of OpenSUSE security announcements that address the issue through updated Java packages; practitioners should apply the corresponding patches or newer Java releases to eliminate the exposure. No information on observed in-the-wild exploitation is supplied in the source data.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2016-4453
Vulnerability Data
Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 6u113, 7u99, and 8u77; Java SE Embedded 8u77; and JRockit R28.3.9 allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via vectors related to JMX.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 12 May 2023
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
The access control policy and procedures directly mandate and enforce proper access control mechanisms across the organization.
Device lock enforces restricted access until re-authentication, directly reducing unauthorized use of active sessions.
Supervision and review of access control activities directly detects and remediates improper access configurations or usages.
Explicitly identifying and documenting actions permitted without identification or authentication enforces proper access control boundaries by defining justified exceptions.
By automatically labeling outputs with security attributes, the control supports attribute-based enforcement and reduces exploitability of improper access control weaknesses.
Associating and retaining security attributes with data directly supports enforcement of access control decisions across storage, processing, and transmission.
Requiring prior authorization for each remote access type prevents improper access control over remote connections.
Requiring authorization of wireless access before allowing connections enforces proper access control for this access method.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.5.1 only requires that an information security policy and topic-specific policies (including on access control) exist and are reviewed; it does not itself enforce, implement or act on any access restriction, so the weakness can still be exploited (per the owner's explicit rule that governance/dependency clauses score none on effect verbs).
A.5.15 directly mandates determining requirements, defining/implementing topic-specific access control policy+rules (with explicit references to 8.3, 5.16, 5.18), and enforcing authorized access while preventing unauthorized access, which squarely stops exploitation of most CWE-284 instances; the bounded remainder is the physical slice (explicitly delegated to 7.2-7.4) plus any second-order defects like path traversal that are not authorization decisions.
A.5.16's identity lifecycle (unique binding, timely disable/remove, no duplicates, oversight of shared/non-human) directly stops most improper access by ensuring the actor in an access decision is correctly identified and authorized; the bounded remainder is non-identity mechanisms in CWE-284 such as path traversal or CSRF that do not turn on actor identity at all.
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, adjustment and timely revocation of both physical and logical access rights per business rules, segregation of duties and risk-evaluated changes/terminations; this stops most unauthorized-actor exploitation paths named by CWE-284, with a bounded remainder (e.g. path-traversal or CSRF cases that are not authorization decisions at all)
A.5.2 defines and assigns roles/responsibilities for protection of information and risk acceptance; it does not itself enforce any access decision and cannot stop exploitation of improper access control (per the owner's labeling rule: governance/dependency clauses do not score on prevent/mitigate verbs)
Ongoing audits and performance reviews of suppliers detect and correct situations where access controls or privilege assignments are weaker than contractually required, limiting an attacker's ability to exploit improper access control in the supplier's environment.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.