dbcve.org
Zulip ServerApplication · Zulip

CVE-2020-15070

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-08-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 2.1.7 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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
Zulip Server 2.x before 2.1.7 allows eval injection if a privileged attacker were able to write directly to the postgres database, and chose to write a crafted custom profile field value.

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

Zulip Server 2.x before 2.1.7 contains an eval injection vulnerability in custom profile field handling. An attacker with privileged access to write directly to the PostgreSQL database can inject and execute arbitrary Python code by storing a crafted payload in a custom profile field value, which is then evaluated unsafely.

MitigationUpgrade to Zulip Server 2.1.7 or later. Additionally, restrict database access to trusted personnel and enforce least-privilege database user permissions to minimize the attack surface.

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
Zulip ServerApplication
Affected:< 2.1.7

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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

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

  1. Identify Zulip Server installation and version
    Check the version file typically located at /etc/zulip/version or look for /var/log/zulip/version.log. On containerized installs, check the Docker container labels or the git commit. Alternatively, access the Zulip administration interface and navigate to the 'Server administration' or 'Stats' page to view the server version.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.x and less than 2.1.7, or the version cannot be determined but the server appears to be a 2.x release.
  2. Verify custom profile fields are in use
    Access the Zulip administration interface, go to 'Users' then 'Custom profile fields'. List all configured custom profile fields. Alternatively, query the PostgreSQL database: SELECT * FROM zerver_customprofilefield;
    Affected if Any custom profile fields are defined in the system.
  3. Confirm database write access exists
    Review database access controls. Check if there are any database users beyond the standard zulip user with write permissions to the zerver database, or if direct SQL access is granted to any administrators or scripts. Query: SELECT usename FROM pg_user; and review pg_hba.conf for allowed connection methods.
    Affected if Any user or service account besides the application itself has direct write access to the PostgreSQL database.
  4. Check for suspicious custom profile field values
    Query the PostgreSQL database for unexpected values in custom profile field tables: SELECT * FROM zerver_customprofilefieldvalue WHERE value LIKE '%__import__%' OR value LIKE '%eval%' OR value LIKE '%exec%'; Also review recent entries in the database audit logs if available.
    Affected if Any custom profile field values contain Python code patterns or appear to be encoded malicious payloads.

Your environment is affected if Zulip Server version is 2.x before 2.1.7 AND custom profile fields exist AND database write access is available to any non-standard user.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to 2.1.7 or later
Fixed in 2.1.7
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Zulip Server 2.1.7 or later. Additionally, restrict database access to trusted personnel and enforce least-privilege database user permissions to minimize the attack surface.

Fix this in Zulip Server Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15070 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2020-15070 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