CVE-2020-15435
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_dashboard.php. When parsing the service_start parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9719.
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 confidenceUnauthenticated command injection in CentOS Web Panel's ajax_dashboard.php. The service_start parameter is passed directly to a system call without input validation, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root.
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= 0.9.8.923CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm CentOS Web Panel is installedCheck for CWP installation by looking for its directories or running: which cwp or ls /usr/local/cwpsrv/ 2>/dev/nullAffected if CWP is installed on the system
-
Identify the CWP versionCheck the version file typically found at /usr/local/cwpsrv/version or look for version information in the CWP admin interface login pageAffected if The installed version is 0.9.8.923
-
Verify ajax_dashboard.php existsLocate the ajax_dashboard.php file - typically in /usr/local/cwpsrv/htdocs/resources/admin/include/ajax_dashboard.php or /usr/local/cwpsrv/htdocs/admin/include/ajax_dashboard.phpAffected if The file exists and is present on the server
-
Check network exposure of CWP admin interfaceDetermine if the CWP admin panel (typically ports 2030, 2086, or 2087) is accessible from untrusted networks. Use: netstat -tlnp | grep -E '2030|2086|2087' to check listening ports, then verify firewall rules allow only trusted IPsAffected if The CWP admin interface is reachable from the internet or untrusted networks without proper IP restriction
You are affected if CentOS Web Panel version 0.9.8.923 is installed AND the admin interface is network-accessible, since the unauthenticated command injection in ajax_dashboard.php becomes remotely exploitable.
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 patch when available. Until then, restrict network access to the CWP admin interface and implement input validation on the service_start parameter to whitelist allowed characters/values.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15435 — 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-2020-15435 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