SecuretrackApplication · Tufin

CVE-2020-13408

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.1 Published 2021-02-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated

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 · unedited
Tufin SecureTrack < R20-2 GA contains reflected + stored XSS (as in, the value is reflected back to the user, but is also stored within the DB and can be later triggered again by the same victim, or also later by different users). Both stored, and reflected payloads are triggerable by admin, so malicious non-authenticated user could get admin level access. Even malicious low-privileged user can inject XSS, which can be executed by admin, potentially elevating privileges and obtaining admin access. (issue 2 of 3)

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 · moderate confidence

Tufin SecureTrack before R20-2 GA contains a combined reflected and stored XSS vulnerability. Malicious input is both reflected back to the user and persisted in the database, allowing the payload to execute whenever an administrator views the compromised data. This enables privilege escalation from low-privileged or unauthenticated users to admin-level access.

MitigationUpgrade to Tufin SecureTrack R20-2 GA or later. Additionally, implement proper input validation and output encoding across all user-supplied data fields to prevent XSS execution.

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
SecuretrackApplication
Affected:< r20-2

CVSS 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
Adjacent
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check SecureTrack version via web UI
    Log into the SecureTrack administration interface and navigate to Help > About or Administration > System Information to view the installed version number
    Affected if The displayed version is any release prior to R20-2 (for example, R20-1, R19-3, etc.)
  2. Check SecureTrack version via CLI
    Access the SecureTrack server console or SSH and run the command typically used to display product version, such as 'st version' or check '/opt/tufin/common/version' if accessible
    Affected if The returned version is any build before the R20-2 GA release
  3. Identify input fields vulnerable to XSS
    Review SecureTrack configuration pages where low-privileged or unauthenticated users can submit data, such as device names, policy labels, or comment fields in network objects
    Affected if The application does not properly sanitize or encode user-supplied input in these fields before displaying or storing the data
  4. Check for existing XSS payloads in database
    Query the SecureTrack database for suspicious JavaScript tags or encoded characters in fields that store user input, such as device_hostnames, policy_comments, or object_descriptions tables
    Affected if Any records contain unexpected HTML tags like <script>, <img onerror=, or encoded variants that were not intentionally added by administrators

Your environment is affected if SecureTrack is running any version prior to R20-2 and accepts user input in the vulnerable fields without proper sanitization.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to Tufin SecureTrack R20-2 GA or later. Additionally, implement proper input validation and output encoding across all user-supplied data fields to prevent XSS execution.

Fix this in Securetrack Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13408 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-13408 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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