CloudformsApplication · Redhat

CVE-2020-10778

MEDIUM · 6.0 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-08-11
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
66/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
In Red Hat CloudForms 4.7 and 5, the read only widgets can be edited by inspecting the forms and dropping the disabled attribute from the fields since there is no server-side validation. This business logic flaw violate the expected behavior.

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 confidence

Red Hat CloudForms 4.7 and 5 lack server-side validation for read-only widget settings, allowing authenticated users to modify protected widget configurations by manipulating client-side HTML to remove disabled attributes from form fields.

MitigationImplement server-side authorization checks to enforce read-only widget permissions and reject any requests attempting to modify protected widget settings regardless of client-side form manipulation.

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
CloudformsApplication
Affected:= 4.7= 5.0.0

CVSS 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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify CloudForms appliance version
    Check the version by logging into the CloudForms appliance console (appliance_console) and viewing the version information, or query the API endpoint /api with an authenticated session to retrieve the server version.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.7 or exactly 5.0.0
  2. Verify widget functionality is enabled
    Confirm the CloudForms web UI is accessible and the dashboard/widget system is loaded. Navigate to the dashboards or widget configuration areas in the web interface.
    Affected if The widget/dashboard feature is accessible and functional in the environment
  3. Test read-only widget setting enforcement
    Using an authenticated user session, access a widget with read-only settings. Use browser developer tools to remove the disabled or readonly attribute from form fields representing protected widget settings, then attempt to submit the modified form.
    Affected if The server accepts and processes the modified request, allowing changes to settings that should be read-only
  4. Check API authorization for widget settings
    Intercept a legitimate widget configuration API request (POST/PUT to /api/widgets/:id) and modify the payload to include read-only field changes, then submit without the disabled parameters.
    Affected if The API accepts modifications to protected widget configuration fields without returning a 403 Forbidden or authorization error

The environment is affected if running Red Hat CloudForms version 4.7 or 5.0.0 and the server permits modification of read-only widget settings through client-side manipulation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement server-side authorization checks to enforce read-only widget permissions and reject any requests attempting to modify protected widget settings regardless of client-side form manipulation.

Fix this in Cloudforms Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10778 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-10778 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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