CVE-2020-14215
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 · uneditedZulip Server before 2.1.5 has Incorrect Access Control because 0198_preregistrationuser_invited_as adds the administrator role to invitations.
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 confidenceZulip Server versions before 2.1.5 contain a database migration (0198_preregistrationuser_invited_as) that incorrectly assigns the administrator role to user invitations, allowing invited users to gain unauthorized administrative privileges on the system.
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< 2.1.5CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Zulip Server versionRun 'zulip --version' or check the /srv/zulip/version.py file, or look at the /etc/zulip/zulip.conf for the ZULIP_VERSION setting. Compare the version to the vulnerable range: < 2.1.5Affected if The installed version is before 2.1.5
-
Identify invitations with administrator role in databaseConnect to the Zulip database (PostgreSQL) and query the migration_tracker table or preregistrationuser table. Run: SELECT * FROM migration_tracker WHERE migration_name = '0198_preregistrationuser_invited_as'; to check if this migration ran, then check: SELECT * FROM preregistrationuser WHERE invited_as = 1; to find admin-typed invitationsAffected if The migration ran and there are invitation records where invited_as is set to administrator role (value 1) that should not have admin privileges
-
Audit active user accounts from invitationsQuery the database for users who were created via invitation and now hold admin or owner roles: SELECT id, email, role FROM zerver_user WHERE id IN (SELECT user_id FROM zerver_preregistrationuser); or check the user_roles table for users with role values corresponding to administrator (typically 100) or owner (typically 200) who may have been created through the vulnerable invitation systemAffected if Users exist who gained administrator or owner roles through the flawed invitation process and should not have those elevated privileges
If the Zulip Server version is before 2.1.5 AND the database migration was executed, the environment likely contains improperly granted administrator roles on user invitations that need to be audited.
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 data2.1.5
Upgrade to Zulip Server 2.1.5 or later, and audit existing user invitations to remove any administrator roles that were improperly granted during the vulnerable period.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-14215 — 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-2020-14215 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