MqttApplication

CVE-2020-13849

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-06-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
The MQTT protocol 3.1.1 requires a server to set a timeout value of 1.5 times the Keep-Alive value specified by a client, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (loss of the ability to establish new connections), as demonstrated by SlowITe.

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 confidence

The MQTT 3.1.1 specification requires servers to set connection timeouts to 1.5x the Keep-Alive value specified by the client. Attackers can exploit this by initiating connections with very large Keep-Alive values, causing the server to hold connection resources for extended periods and eventually exhaust its capacity to accept new connections, as demonstrated by the SlowITe tool.

MitigationImplement server-side enforcement of maximum Keep-Alive values (e.g., capping at 60-300 seconds) and/or deploy connection rate limiting and connection pool limits at the broker or network level to mitigate resource exhaustion from slow-rate connection attacks.

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
MqttApplication
Affected:= 3.1.1

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 checks

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

  1. Identify MQTT broker software
    List running processes or services on the system that handle MQTT connections (common brokers include Mosquitto, HiveMQ, EMQ X, ActiveMQ). Check listening ports for 1883 (MQTT) or 8883 (MQTT/TLS).
    Affected if An MQTT broker is running that implements the MQTT 3.1.1 protocol without enforcing maximum Keep-Alive limits on incoming connections.
  2. Review broker configuration for Keep-Alive limits
    Examine the MQTT broker configuration files or running parameters for settings that restrict maximum client-suggested Keep-Alive values (commonly named max_keep_alive, max_keepalive, connection_timeout, or similar).
    Affected if No maximum Keep-Alive setting is configured, or the configured maximum exceeds 60-300 seconds, allowing clients to specify arbitrarily large values.
  3. Test broker Keep-Alive acceptance
    Connect to the broker using an MQTT client tool and set an unusually high Keep-Alive value (e.g., 3600 seconds or higher) in the CONNECT packet. Observe whether the broker accepts the connection without enforcing an internal limit.
    Affected if The broker accepts the connection with a large Keep-Alive value and maintains the connection for the full 1.5x Keep-Alive duration without disconnecting earlier.
  4. Check connection limits and rate limiting
    Inspect broker or network-level settings for connection rate limits, concurrent connection limits, or connection pool restrictions.
    Affected if No connection rate limiting or maximum concurrent connection limits are configured, allowing an attacker to exploit Keep-Alive exhaustion.

A system is affected if it runs an MQTT 3.1.1 broker that accepts client-specified Keep-Alive values without enforcing a reasonable maximum limit and lacks connection rate limiting.

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

Implement server-side enforcement of maximum Keep-Alive values (e.g., capping at 60-300 seconds) and/or deploy connection rate limiting and connection pool limits at the broker or network level to mitigate resource exhaustion from slow-rate connection attacks.

Fix this in Mqtt Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13849 — 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-2020-13849 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