FKIE_CVE-2016-15046

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-07-25 16:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 00:41
Severity
8.6 (High) - CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Summary
A client-side remote code execution vulnerability exists in Hanwha Techwin Smart Security Manager (SSM) versions 1.32 and 1.4, due to improper restrictions on the PUT method exposed by the bundled Apache ActiveMQ instance (running on port 8161). An attacker can exploit this flaw through a Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) bypass combined with JavaScript-triggered file uploads to the web server, ultimately resulting in arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges. This vulnerability bypasses the server-side mitigations introduced in ZDI-15-156 and ZDI-16-481 by shifting the exploitation to the client-side. This product is now referred to as Hanwha Wisenet SSM and it is unknown if current versions are affected.
References
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttp://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-15-156/
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttp://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-16-481/
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/master/modules/exploits/windows/browser/samsung_security_manager_put.rb
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttps://srcincite.io/advisories/src-2016-0032/
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttps://web.archive.org/web/20160518205411/http://security.hanwhatechwin.com/product/product_view.asp?idx=6779#FL080000
disclosure@vulncheck.comhttps://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/samsung-security-manager-activemq-file-upload-rce
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/master/modules/exploits/windows/browser/samsung_security_manager_put.rb
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unknown",
          "modules": [
            "ActiveMQ Broker Service"
          ],
          "product": "Smart Security Manager (SSM)",
          "vendor": "Hanwha",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "1.32"
            },
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "1.4"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "A client-side remote code execution vulnerability exists in Hanwha Techwin Smart Security Manager (SSM) versions 1.32 and 1.4, due to improper restrictions on the PUT method exposed by the bundled Apache ActiveMQ instance (running on port 8161). An attacker can exploit this flaw through a Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) bypass combined with JavaScript-triggered file uploads to the web server, ultimately resulting in arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges. \n\nThis vulnerability bypasses the server-side mitigations introduced in ZDI-15-156 and ZDI-16-481 by shifting the exploitation to the client-side. \n\nThis product is now referred to as\u00a0Hanwha Wisenet SSM and it is unknown if current versions are affected."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "Existe una vulnerabilidad de ejecuci\u00f3n remota de c\u00f3digo en el lado del cliente en las versiones 1.32 y 1.4 de Samsung Security Manager, debido a restricciones indebidas en el m\u00e9todo PUT, expuestas por la instancia de Apache ActiveMQ incluida (que se ejecuta en el puerto 8161). Un atacante puede explotar esta vulnerabilidad mediante Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) combinada con la carga de archivos al servidor web mediante JavaScript, lo que resulta en la ejecuci\u00f3n de c\u00f3digo arbitrario con privilegios SYSTEM. Esta vulnerabilidad elude las mitigaciones del lado del servidor introducidas en ZDI-15-156 y ZDI-16-481 al trasladar la explotaci\u00f3n al lado del cliente. Este producto se conoce ahora como Hanwha Wisenet SSM y se desconoce si las versiones actuales est\u00e1n afectadas."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2016-15046",
  "lastModified": "2026-06-17T00:41:04.200",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV40": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackRequirements": "NONE",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "baseScore": 8.6,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
          "userInteraction": "ACTIVE",
          "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
          "version": "4.0",
          "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
        },
        "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2016-15046",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "poc"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "total"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2025-07-30T15:22:08.519649Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2025-07-25T16:15:26.827",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-15-156/"
    },
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-16-481/"
    },
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/master/modules/exploits/windows/browser/samsung_security_manager_put.rb"
    },
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "https://srcincite.io/advisories/src-2016-0032/"
    },
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20160518205411/http://security.hanwhatechwin.com/product/product_view.asp?idx=6779#FL080000"
    },
    {
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/samsung-security-manager-activemq-file-upload-rce"
    },
    {
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "url": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/master/modules/exploits/windows/browser/samsung_security_manager_put.rb"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Deferred",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-306"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-434"
        }
      ],
      "source": "disclosure@vulncheck.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.