CVE-2020-13847
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 · uneditedSylabs Singularity 3.0 through 3.5 lacks support for an Integrity Check. Singularity's sign and verify commands do not sign metadata found in the global header or data object descriptors of a SIF file.
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 confidenceSylabs Singularity versions 3.0-3.5 have incomplete integrity verification for SIF (Singularity Image Format) files. The sign and verify commands only partially sign metadata, omitting the global header and data object descriptors from the cryptographic signature. This allows attackers to modify these unsigned metadata sections without detection, potentially enabling tampering with container image configuration, permissions, or data object references while the container appears valid.
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>= 3.0.0, <= 3.5.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Determine Singularity versionRun 'singularity --version' or 'singularity version' to obtain the installed Singularity version numberAffected if Version is >= 3.0.0 and <= 3.5.0
-
Identify SIF files in useSearch for files with .sif extension in your environment using 'find /path -name "*.sif"' or check known container directoriesAffected if SIF format container images are present in the environment
-
Check for sign or verify command usageReview any scripts, CI/CD pipelines, or documentation that invoke 'singularity sign' or 'singularity verify' commands on SIF filesAffected if The sign or verify commands are used to validate SIF file integrity
-
Verify external integrity controlsInspect whether external checksum validation, external digital signatures, or third-party integrity tools are configured for SIF files at the storage or CI/CD layerAffected if No external integrity verification exists and the environment relies solely on Singularity's built-in sign/verify for cryptographic validation
A user is affected if they have Singularity version 3.0.0 through 3.5.0 installed and rely on the 'singularity sign' or 'singularity verify' commands to validate the integrity of SIF container images.
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 dataUpgrade Singularity to version 3.6 or later which includes comprehensive integrity checking that signs all SIF metadata including global headers and data object descriptors. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement additional verification controls such as external checksums or digital signatures at the storage/CI-CD layer.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 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 $12,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13847 — 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-2020-13847 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