FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2020-15112
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 etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.
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 confidenceIn etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, the WAL (Write-Ahead Log) ReadAll method in wal/wal.go does not properly validate that entry indices do not exceed the actual number of entries. This index out-of-bounds condition causes a runtime panic when any consensus participant reads WAL entries, leading to denial of service.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 32< 3.3.23>= 3.4.0, < 3.4.10CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify etcd versionRun `etcd --version` or examine the etcd binary with `etcd --version` to obtain the release version numberAffected if The version is less than 3.3.23, or greater than or equal to 3.4.0 but less than 3.4.10
-
Verify OS environmentCheck if the host is running Fedora 32 by running `cat /etc/fedora-release` or `hostnamectl`Affected if The system is Fedora 32 with an affected etcd version installed
-
Confirm WAL usage contextThe vulnerability affects any etcd node that participates in consensus. Check if this etcd instance is part of a cluster by reviewing the etcd configuration for cluster membership (--initial-cluster flag or config file)Affected if The etcd node is part of a consensus cluster and runs an affected version
-
Locate WAL directoryIdentify the WAL directory path from etcd configuration (--wal-dir flag or default data directory). The WAL files are stored in this directoryAffected if This check confirms where WAL data resides but does not indicate vulnerability on its own; version is the determining factor
A system is affected if it runs etcd version 3.4.0 through 3.4.9, any version below 3.3.23, or etcd on Fedora 32 with a vulnerable version installed.
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 data3.3.233.4.10
Upgrade etcd to version 3.3.23, 3.4.10, or later to patch the boundary check in the WAL ReadAll method.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15112 — 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-2020-15112 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