CVE-2020-14489
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 · uneditedOpenClinic GA 5.09.02 and 5.89.05b stores passwords using inadequate hashing complexity, which may allow an attacker to recover passwords using known password cracking techniques.
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 confidenceOpenClinic GA versions 5.09.02 and 5.89.05b use inadequate password hashing (likely weak algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1 without proper salting or iteration counts), allowing attackers to recover plaintext passwords via dictionary or brute-force 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= 5.09.02= 5.89.05bCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify the installed OpenClinic GA versionCheck your software documentation, about page, or installation files for the exact version number of OpenClinic GA currently deployedAffected if The installed version is 5.09.02 or 5.89.05b exactly
-
Locate the password storage mechanismAccess the database or user configuration files where OpenClinic GA stores user credentials; examine the schema or file structure for password-related fieldsAffected if Passwords are stored in the system and the hashing mechanism is not visible or documented as using modern algorithms
-
Examine the password hashing implementationInspect the source code, configuration, or authentication module for the function responsible for hashing passwords; look for algorithms such as MD5, SHA-1, or similar weak functionsAffected if The code uses MD5, SHA-1, or other weak hashing algorithms without proper salting or iteration counts
-
Verify the hashing configurationCheck any configuration files or database settings related to password security, encryption, or authentication for the hashing method in useAffected if Configuration shows weak or no salting, missing iteration counts, or legacy hashing methods enabled
User is affected if running OpenClinic GA version 5.09.02 or 5.89.05b and the system stores passwords using weak hashing algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1 without proper salting or iteration counts.
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 dataReplace weak hashing with modern password hashing functions (bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) using appropriate work factors and salts, and implement a migration strategy for existing stored passwords.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-14489 — 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-2020-14489 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