CVE-2020-10924
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of NETGEAR R6700 V1.0.4.84_10.0.58 routers. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the UPnP service, which listens on TCP port 5000 by default. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a fixed-length, stack-based buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9643.
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 buffer overflow vulnerability in the UPnP service (TCP port 5000) on NETGEAR R6700 routers allows network-adjacent attackers to bypass authentication and execute code as root. The flaw stems from insufficient validation of user-supplied data length before copying to a fixed-size stack-based buffer.
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= 1.0.4.84_10.0.58CVSS 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 router modelAccess the router admin interface or check the device label to confirm the model is NETGEAR R6700Affected if Device is not a NETGEAR R6700 model, then not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to Administration > Firmware Update or check the version displayed on the status page. Compare against 1.0.4.84_10.0.58Affected if Firmware version is exactly 1.0.4.84_10.0.58, the router is affected by this vulnerability
-
Verify UPnP service is enabledLog into the router web interface and navigate to Advanced > UPnP. Confirm the UPnP checkbox is enabledAffected if UPnP service is enabled, the attack surface is present; if disabled, the vulnerability cannot be exploited
-
Check if TCP port 5000 is accessibleFrom a network-adjacent host, run 'nc -zv <router_ip> 5000' or 'telnet <router_ip> 5000' to test connectivity to the UPnP service portAffected if Port 5000 is reachable from the network, an attacker could attempt exploitation
A NETGEAR R6700 router running firmware version 1.0.4.84_10.0.58 with UPnP enabled and TCP port 5000 exposed on the network is affected by CVE-2020-10924.
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 dataApply the latest NETGEAR firmware update for the R6700 model. If unavailable, disable the UPnP service or restrict network access to TCP port 5000 through firewall rules.
- Consultation10.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing14.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,048.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10924 — 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-2020-10924 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