CVE-2020-11485
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 · uneditedNVIDIA DGX servers, all DGX-1 with BMC firmware versions prior to 3.38.30, contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the AMI BMC firmware in which the web application does not sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request, which can lead to information disclosure or code execution.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in AMI BMC firmware on NVIDIA DGX-1 servers allows attackers to trick authenticated users into executing unintended requests, potentially leading to information disclosure or arbitrary code execution due to insufficient verification of request authenticity.
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< 3.38.30CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Confirm NVIDIA DGX-1 system modelRun command 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> -U admin -P admin chassis status' or check system inventory via 'dmidecode -s system-product-name' to verify the hardware is an NVIDIA DGX-1 serverAffected if System is an NVIDIA DGX-1 server with AMI BMC firmware
-
Identify BMC firmware versionRun 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> -U admin -P admin raw 0x3c 0x01' or access BMC web interface and navigate to Settings > Firmware Info to retrieve the installed AMI BMC firmware versionAffected if BMC firmware version is displayed as less than 3.38.30
-
Verify BMC web interface is enabledCheck if HTTP/HTTPS ports (80/443) are open on the BMC IP using 'nmap -p 80,443 <BMC_IP>' or verify remote management interface is accessibleAffected if BMC web interface is accessible and responds to HTTP/HTTPS requests
-
Confirm IPMI authentication is configuredVerify IPMI over LAN is enabled via 'ipmitool -I lanplus -H <BMC_IP> -U admin -P admin raw 0x32 0x70 0x01 0x00' or check BMC network settings for remote management accessAffected if Remote IPMI/BMC management is enabled, allowing authenticated sessions
If the system is an NVIDIA DGX-1 with AMI BMC firmware version below 3.38.30 and the BMC web interface is accessible for remote management, the environment is affected by this CSRF vulnerability.
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 data3.38.30
Update the BMC firmware on DGX-1 servers to version 3.38.30 or later to address the CSRF vulnerability. This is a firmware-level issue that cannot be mitigated through configuration changes alone.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11485 — 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-2020-11485 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