CVE-2020-10937
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in IPFS (aka go-ipfs) 0.4.23. An attacker can generate ephemeral identities (Sybils) and leverage the IPFS connection management reputation system to poison other nodes' routing tables, eclipsing the nodes that are the target of the attack from the rest of the network. Later versions, in particular go-ipfs 0.7, mitigate this.
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 confidenceThis is a Sybil attack vulnerability in go-ipfs 0.4.23 where an attacker creates ephemeral identities to exploit the IPFS connection management reputation system. By generating many fake nodes, attackers can poison routing tables and eclipse targeted nodes from the network, isolating them from legitimate peers.
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= 0.4.23CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check IPFS daemon versionRun the command `ipfs version` or `ipfs version --all` to list the version of the go-ipfs daemon installed on the systemAffected if The version displayed is 0.4.23 exactly
-
Verify IPFS binary versionCheck the installed IPFS binary by running `which ipfs` to locate it, then run the binary with `--version` flag, or inspect the package manager if installed via apt/dpkg/yum/rpmAffected if The binary or package version reports 0.4.23
-
Inspect running IPFS processIf IPFS is running as a daemon, use `ps aux | grep ipfs` or check system service status to identify the version of the running processAffected if The running daemon is version 0.4.23
-
Check container or orchestration versionIf IPFS runs in a container, inspect the container image tag or Dockerfile: run `docker images` or check the image name and tag usedAffected if The deployed container image is tagged or references version 0.4.23
A system is affected only if the running IPFS daemon or binary is confirmed to be version 0.4.23 of go-ipfs/Protocol Ipfs.
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 dataUpgrade go-ipfs to version 0.7.0 or later, which includes mitigations against this Sybil-based eclipse attack.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10937 — 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-2020-10937 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