CVE-2020-10661
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 · uneditedHashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise versions 0.11.0 through 1.3.3 may, under certain circumstances, have existing nested-path policies grant access to Namespaces created after-the-fact. Fixed in 1.3.4.
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 confidenceHashiCorp Vault versions 0.11.0-1.3.3 contain a vulnerability where nested-path policies may inadvertently grant access to Namespaces created after the policy was defined. This creates a privilege escalation risk where policies intended for specific namespaces unexpectedly apply to newly created namespaces.
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>= 0.11.0, <= 1.3.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Check installed Vault versionRun `vault version` or check the running Vault binary versionAffected if The version is between 0.11.0 and 1.3.3 inclusive
-
Identify if namespaces are in useRun `vault namespace list` to list all namespaces configured in the environmentAffected if Any namespaces exist and nested-path policies reference them
-
List all existing policiesRun `vault policy list` to enumerate all policies, then `vault policy read <policy-name>` for each to inspect their contentsAffected if Any policy contains nested-path references (paths that span multiple namespace levels or use wildcard patterns)
-
Audit policy creation timestampsReview policy creation dates using audit logs or configuration files, then compare against namespace creation dates using `vault namespace list -detailed` if availableAffected if Namespaces were created after the nested-path policies were defined
You are affected if Vault version is 0.11.0-1.3.3 AND you use namespaces with nested-path policies that were created before some namespaces existed.
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 · scopedUpgrade to Vault 1.3.4 or later and audit existing nested-path policies and namespace configurations to ensure access controls align with intended boundaries.
Vault 1.3.4
- 1. Ensure you have a complete backup of your Vault data and configuration
- 2. Review the Vault 1.3.4 release notes for any migration requirements
- 3. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 4. Stop the Vault service
- 5. Upgrade Vault to version 1.3.4 or later
- 6. Verify the upgrade was successful and namespace policies are functioning correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10661 — 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-2020-10661 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