CVE-2020-11845
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 · uneditedCross Site Scripting vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Manager product. Affecting versions 9.50, 9.51, 9.52, 9.60, 9.61, 9.62, 9.63. The vulnerability could be exploited to allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML.
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 Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Manager web interface allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML code through unsanitized user inputs. This stored or reflected XSS executes in the context of other users' browsers when they view malicious content.
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>= 9.50, <= 9.63CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 Service Manager versionAccess the Service Manager administrative console or run the version check command (typically sm -version or through the System Information page in the web interface). Compare the displayed version number against the affected range 9.50 through 9.63.Affected if The installed version falls within 9.50 to 9.63 inclusive.
-
Verify web interface is enabledCheck if the Service Manager web tier or web interface component is installed and running. Look for web service processes (such as IIS, Apache, or the built-in web server) listening on typical HTTP ports (8080, 8443, or 13080).Affected if The web interface is accessible and the version falls within the affected range.
-
Confirm user input handling modules are activeIdentify which web handlers or servlets process user-submitted data in the web tier configuration. Look for modules that accept form inputs, search parameters, or URL parameters.Affected if User input handling modules are active and the version is within the affected range.
-
Review web tier configuration for input sanitizationExamine web tier configuration files (such as web.xml, configuration files in the web tier directory, or SM.cfg) to determine if input validation or output encoding mechanisms are explicitly configured.Affected if Input sanitization settings are absent or disabled and the version is affected.
A user is affected if Service Manager version 9.50 through 9.63 is installed AND the web interface is enabled, allowing unsanitized user inputs to be processed.
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 vendor patches for Service Manager versions 9.50-9.63 or upgrade to a patched release. Implement input validation and output encoding as compensating controls if immediate patching is not feasible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11845 — 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-2020-11845 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