Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2016-6367 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance Software. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2016-6367 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77) in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software versions prior to 8.4(1) running on ASA 5500, ASA 5500-X, PIX, and FWSM devices. The flaw, tracked as Bug ID CSCtu74257 and also known as EPICBANANA, permits local users to escalate privileges by submitting specially crafted invalid CLI commands.
A local attacker with low-privileged CLI access can exploit the issue without user interaction to obtain elevated privileges, resulting in full control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected device. The CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 reflects the high impact combined with local attack vector and low attack complexity.
Cisco's security advisory cisco-sa-20160817-asa-cli and related notices direct administrators to upgrade to fixed releases and reference additional context from the Shadow Brokers disclosures. The vulnerability was publicly associated with the 2016 Shadow Brokers leak of NSA-linked exploit tools.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2016-7290
Vulnerability Data
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software before 8.4(1) on ASA 5500, ASA 5500-X, PIX, and FWSM devices allows local users to gain privileges via invalid CLI commands, aka Bug ID CSCtu74257 or EPICBANANA.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 24 May 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.