CVE-2020-11631
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 EJBCA before 6.15.2.6 and 7.x before 7.3.1.2. An error state can be generated in the CA UI by a malicious user. This, in turn, allows exploitation of other bugs. This follow-on exploitation can lead to privilege escalation and remote code execution. (This is exploitable only when at least one accessible port lacks a requirement for client certificate authentication. These ports are 8442 or 8080 in a standard installation.)
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 malicious user can trigger an error state in the EJBCA CA UI. This error state enables exploitation of other vulnerabilities in the system, leading to privilege escalation and RCE. The attack requires at least one accessible port (8442 or 8080 by default) that lacks client certificate authentication.
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< 6.15.2.6>= 7.0.0, < 7.3.1.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 EJBCA versionLocate the EJBCA version file or use the admin interface to determine the exact version number running in your environmentAffected if The version is below 6.15.2.6, OR between 7.0.0 and 7.3.1.2 (exclusive of 7.3.1.2)
-
Determine if ports 8442 or 8080 are externally accessibleUse network scanning tools or review firewall rules to check if ports 8442 and 8080 are open and reachable from untrusted networksAffected if Either port 8442 or 8080 is accessible from an untrusted network without network-level restrictions
-
Verify client certificate authentication status on accessible portsExamine the configuration for ports 8442 and 8080 to determine whether client certificate authentication (mutual TLS) is required for accessAffected if One or both ports are accessible WITHOUT client certificate authentication enabled
You are affected if your EJBCA version is in the vulnerable range AND at least one of ports 8442 or 8080 is accessible without client certificate authentication required
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 data6.15.2.67.3.1.2
Upgrade EJBCA to version 6.15.2.6/7.3.1.2 or later. Ensure all accessible ports require client certificate authentication, especially ports 8442 and 8080 in standard installations.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11631 — 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-2020-11631 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