EtcdApplication · Redhat
CVE-2020-15115
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 · uneditedetcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10 does not perform any password length validation, which allows for very short passwords, such as those with a length of one. This may allow an attacker to guess or brute-force users' passwords with little computational effort.
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 confidenceetcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10 lacks password length validation, allowing trivially short passwords (e.g., single character). This weakness significantly reduces the effective entropy of user passwords, making brute-force and dictionary attacks far more feasible.
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
EtcdApplication
>= 3.3.0, < 3.3.23>= 3.4.0, < 3.4.10
FedoraOperating system
= 32CVSS 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.
-
Check installed etcd versionRun `etcd --version` or check via package manager (e.g., `rpm -q etcd` on RHEL/Fedora)Affected if The version is >= 3.3.0 and < 3.3.23, or >= 3.4.0 and < 3.4.10
-
Verify etcd is running with authentication enabledRun `etcdctl auth status` or check if the `--auth-token` flag or similar auth configuration is present in the etcd process/environmentAffected if Authentication is enabled and the version falls within the affected ranges
-
Test password length validation by attempting to set a short passwordUse `etcdctl user add testuser --new-password=a` (single character) or similar command to create a user with a trivially short passwordAffected if The short password is accepted without error, indicating no password length validation is enforced
-
Inspect etcd logs for password validation errorsCheck etcd service logs (journalctl -u etcd) for any rejection messages when attempting to set short passwords, or lack thereofAffected if No validation errors appear when setting short passwords and the version is affected
You are affected if etcd version falls within 3.3.0-3.3.22 or 3.4.0-3.4.9 AND authentication is enabled AND short passwords can be set without rejection.
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 which implements password length validation. Alternatively, enforce password complexity policies through external authentication mechanisms if upgrading is not immediately possible.
Fix this in Etcd
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15115 — 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-2020-15115 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