CVE-2020-10255
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedModern DRAM chips (DDR4 and LPDDR4 after 2015) are affected by a vulnerability in deployment of internal mitigations against RowHammer attacks known as Target Row Refresh (TRR), aka the TRRespass issue. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker needs to create certain access patterns to trigger bit flips on affected memory modules, aka a Many-sided RowHammer attack. This means that, even when chips advertised as RowHammer-free are used, attackers may still be able to conduct privilege-escalation attacks against the kernel, conduct privilege-escalation attacks against the Sudo binary, and achieve cross-tenant virtual-machine access by corrupting RSA keys. The issue affects chips produced by SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung. NOTE: tracking DRAM supply-chain issues is not straightforward because a single product model from a single vendor may use DRAM chips from different manufacturers.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCVE-2020-10255 reveals that the Target Row Refresh (TRR) mitigation in modern DDR4 and LPDDR4 DRAM chips (manufactured after 2015) can be bypassed through carefully crafted memory access patterns, allowing attackers to induce bit flips (Many-sided RowHammer attack) and achieve kernel privilege escalation, Sudo binary corruption, and cross-tenant VM access via RSA key corruption.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed DRAM typeRun 'dmidecode -t memory' or check system BIOS/UEFI memory information to determine if DDR4 or LPDDR4 modules are installedAffected if System uses DDR4 or LPDDR4 memory modules from affected vendors
-
Identify DRAM vendorRun 'dmidecode -t memory' and examine the 'Manufacturer' or 'Part Number' field for Micron, Samsung, or SK HynixAffected if DRAM modules are manufactured by Micron, Samsung, or SK Hynix
-
Check DRAM manufacturing dateRun 'dmidecode -t memory' and look for manufacturing date in the 'Date' or 'Locator' field; for cloud VMs, check instance metadata or contact cloud provider for hardware detailsAffected if DRAM modules were manufactured after 2015 (CVE specifically affects post-2015 chips)
-
Verify system has software mitigations in placeCheck if memory encryption (TME/MKTME) is enabled via 'lscpu' or BIOS settings; verify if increased DRAM refresh rates are configured in BIOS/UEFIAffected if No hardware-based or software-based RowHammer mitigations are enabled and the system meets criteria in steps 1-3
System is likely affected if it uses DDR4 or LPDDR4 memory from Micron, Samsung, or SK Hynix manufactured after 2015 with no RowHammer mitigations (TME/MKTME, increased refresh rates, or memory isolation) enabled
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor firmware/microcode updates when available; replace affected DRAM modules from SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung; consider software mitigations such as memory encryption (TME/MKTME), increased refresh rates, or memory isolation to reduce attack surface.
- This is a hardware vulnerability in DRAM chips (DDR4/LPDDR4) that cannot be fixed via software upgrades, patches, or configuration changes.
- Verify if your hardware is affected by checking the DRAM chip manufacturer (SK Hynix, Micron, or Samsung) and production date (post-2015).
- Contact your hardware vendor to inquire about replacement with newer DRAM chips that have improved TRR (Target Row Refresh) implementations.
- Consider deploying memory error-correcting code (ECC) as a partial mitigation to detect bit flips.
- At the OS level, consider applying RowHammer kernel mitigations (e.g., Linux kernel's memory controller shuffling or refresh rate adjustments) as a defense-in-depth measure, though these provide limited protection against this vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation60.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA12.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $30,336.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10255 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-10255 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data