CVE-2020-12020
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 · uneditedBaxter ExactaMix EM 2400 Versions 1.10, 1.11, and 1.13 and ExactaMix EM1200 Versions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 does not restrict non administrative users from gaining access to the operating system and editing the application startup script. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to alter the startup script as the limited-access user.
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 confidenceThe Baxter ExactaMix EM 2400 and EM1200 infusion pump systems contain an improper access control vulnerability where limited-access (non-administrative) users can access the underlying operating system and modify application startup scripts. This allows privilege escalation through startup script injection, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution upon system reboot.
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= 1.10= 1.11= 1.13= 1.1= 1.2= 1.4CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 the ExactaMix device modelLocate the device label or system information screen showing the model number (EM2400 or EM1200)Affected if The device is an EM2400 or EM1200 model
-
Determine the installed firmware versionAccess the device system settings or about screen to view the firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version is 1.10, 1.11, or 1.13 for EM2400; or 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 for EM1200
-
Verify if limited users can access the operating systemAttempt to access the underlying OS or command shell using a non-administrative user accountAffected if Non-administrative users can access the underlying operating system
-
Check startup script file permissionsInspect the permissions on application startup scripts (typically in /etc/init.d/, /etc/rc.d/, or similar directories) using 'ls -la' or equivalent command as a limited userAffected if Startup scripts are writable by non-administrative users or have overly permissive access controls
The environment is affected if the device is an EM2400 (firmware 1.10, 1.11, or 1.13) or EM1200 (firmware 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4) AND limited users can access the OS or modify startup scripts.
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 dataImplement role-based access controls (RBAC) to restrict OS access and file permissions on startup scripts to administrative accounts only. Coordinate with Baxter for any vendor-supplied patches or hardened configurations, and ensure changes follow medical device change management procedures.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-12020 — 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-2020-12020 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