CVE-2020-14516
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 · uneditedIn Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform Versions 6.10.00 and 6.11.00, there is an issue with the implementation of the SHA-256 hashing algorithm with FactoryTalk Services Platform that prevents the user password from being hashed properly.
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 confidenceFactoryTalk Services Platform versions 6.10.00 and 6.11.00 contain a flawed SHA-256 hashing implementation that fails to properly hash user passwords, potentially storing them in an insecure manner or in plaintext. This cryptographic failure allows attackers with database access to obtain user credentials in recoverable form.
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= 6.10.00= 6.11.00CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify FactoryTalk Services Platform versionCheck the installed version through Windows Add/Remove Programs, or query the Windows Registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Rockwell Software\FactoryTalk Services Platform\ for the Version value, or examine the assembly information in the program installation directoryAffected if Version equals 6.10.00 or 6.11.00 exactly
-
Locate FactoryTalk user databaseFind the SQL Server or SQL Express database used by FactoryTalk Services Platform, typically located in the ProgramData\Rockwell folder or within the SQL instance. Common database names include FTSPC, FactoryTalk, or similar platform databasesAffected if Database file or database instance exists and is accessible on the system
-
Examine password storage in databaseConnect to the FactoryTalk database and query the user credentials table. Examine the password column for: plaintext passwords, short hash values, or identical hash values across different user accounts (which would indicate lack of proper salting)Affected if Passwords appear as plaintext, are stored as weak/short hashes, or identical hashes exist for different users with the same password
-
Check database file access permissionsUse icacls or examine the Security tab on the database file to determine which Windows users and groups have read access to the FactoryTalk database filesAffected if Non-administrative accounts or unauthorized users have read access to the database files (enabling the attack vector)
Environment is affected if FactoryTalk Services Platform version is 6.10.00 or 6.11.00 AND user credentials in the database are stored in plaintext, weak hashes, or without proper salting, particularly if the database is accessible to unauthorized users.
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 dataApply vendor-provided patches when available and rotate all user passwords, as the hashing failure may have exposed credentials. Consider network segmentation to limit exposure until patching is complete.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-14516 — 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-2020-14516 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