CVE-2020-10996
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 Percona XtraDB Cluster before 5.7.28-31.41.2. A bundled script inadvertently sets a static transition_key for SST processes in place of the random key expected.
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 confidencePercona XtraDB Cluster versions before 5.7.28-31.41.2 contain a bundled script that sets a static, predictable transition_key for State Snapshot Transfer (SST) processes instead of generating a random key. This weakens the encryption protecting SST traffic, potentially allowing man-in-the-middle attacks or unauthorized data interception during cluster node synchronization.
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< 5.7.28-31.41.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 installed Percona XtraDB Cluster versionRun `mysql --version` or check the package manager (e.g., `rpm -q percona-xtradb-cluster` or `dpkg -l percona-xtradb-cluster-server`)Affected if The version displayed is earlier than 5.7.28-31.41.2 (for example, 5.7.27 or 5.7.28-31.41.0)
-
Verify SST method configurationCheck the my.cnf configuration file for the wsrep_sst_method setting, or run `SHOW VARIABLES LIKE 'wsrep_sst_method';`Affected if SST is configured (wsrep_sst_method is set to xtrabackup-v2, xtrabackup, or mysqldump)
-
Locate the SST script used for State Snapshot TransferExamine the SST script referenced in your configuration, typically found in the Percona installation bin directory (commonly /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin/), such as wsrep_sst_xtrabackup-v2Affected if The SST script exists and is from a version earlier than 5.7.28-31.41.2
-
Inspect the transition_key setting in the SST script or configurationSearch the SST script file for the string 'transition_key' using `grep -r 'transition_key' <path_to_sst_script>` or check my.cnf for a static transition_key valueAffected if A hardcoded, static, or predictable transition_key value is found rather than a dynamically generated random key
You are affected if Percona XtraDB Cluster version is earlier than 5.7.28-31.41.2 AND State Snapshot Transfer is enabled with a static transition_key instead of a randomly generated one.
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 data5.7.28-31.41.2
Upgrade Percona XtraDB Cluster to version 5.7.28-31.41.2 or later to obtain the corrected script that generates random transition keys for SST. Verify SST functionality after upgrade.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10996 — 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-2020-10996 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