CVE-2020-10286
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 · uneditedthe main user account has restricted privileges but is in the sudoers group and there is not any mechanism in place to prevent sudo su or sudo -i to be run gaining unrestricted access to sensible files, encryption, or issue orders that disrupt robot operation.
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 confidenceA nominally restricted user account is placed in the sudoers group without sudo policy restrictions, allowing execution of `sudo su` or `sudo -i` to escalate to root privileges and access sensitive files, encryption keys, or issue commands that disrupt robotic system operation.
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 data<= 1.5.0all 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 the Xarm model and firmware versionAccess the robot controller interface or use the manufacturer's CLI tool to query the firmware version. On the controller, check system information or use commands like 'uname -a' or manufacturer-specific queries.Affected if The firmware is Xarm 5 Lite <= 1.5.0, or Xarm 6/7 of any version.
-
Check for existing user accounts with sudo group membershipList all users on the system and check which ones belong to the sudo or sudoers group using 'getent group sudo' or 'grep sudo /etc/group'. Identify if default/restricted accounts are members.Affected if A nominally restricted user account (such as a default or non-admin user) is a member of the sudo group.
-
Inspect the sudoers configuration for policy restrictionsExamine /etc/sudoers and any files in /etc/sudoers.d/ using 'visudo' or by reading the files directly. Look for entries that grant ALL privileges or lack specific command restrictions.Affected if The sudoers configuration permits unrestricted access (ALL=(ALL) ALL) for the restricted user without specific command limitations.
-
Test for unrestricted sudo su or sudo -i accessAs the nominally restricted user account, attempt to execute 'sudo su' or 'sudo -i' to verify whether root shell access is granted without password prompts or command-specific restrictions.Affected if The restricted user can successfully execute 'sudo su' or 'sudo -i' to obtain a root shell.
You are affected if your Xarm device runs the vulnerable firmware version and contains a nominally restricted user that has unrestricted sudo group membership allowing privilege escalation to root.
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.
From vendor dataRemove the user from the sudoers group or configure explicit sudoers policy to deny `sudo su`, `sudo -i`, and similar privilege escalation commands while permitting only necessary specific commands.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10286 — 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-2020-10286 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