CVE-2020-15793
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Desigo Insight (All versions). The device does not properly set the X-Frame-Options HTTP Header which makes it vulnerable to Clickjacking attacks. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to retrieve or modify data in the context of a legitimate user by tricking that user to click on a website controlled by the attacker.
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 confidenceDesigo Insight fails to set the X-Frame-Options HTTP header, allowing the application to be embedded in iframes on attacker-controlled websites. This enables clickjacking attacks where a user is tricked into clicking hidden buttons or links within an invisible iframe, potentially allowing data retrieval or modification in the context of the legitimate user.
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< 6.0= 6.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm Desigo Insight is installedLocate the Desigo Insight installation directory or identify the running service. Check for the presence of Desigo Insight executables or services on the system.Affected if Desigo Insight version < 6.0 or = 6.0 is installed and running
-
Identify the web interface endpointDetermine the URL or hostname where Desigo Insight web interface is accessible. This is typically port 8080, 443, or a configured web server port.Affected if The Desigo Insight web interface is accessible over HTTP/HTTPS
-
Check for X-Frame-Options headerSend an HTTP request to the Desigo Insight web interface (e.g., using curl -I http://<hostname>:<port>/) and inspect the response headers for the presence of X-Frame-Options.Affected if The X-Frame-Options header is missing from HTTP responses, or the header value is not set to DENY or SAMEORIGIN
-
Verify iframe embedding possibilityAttempt to load the Desigo Insight URL within an iframe on a test page, or inspect the Content-Security-Policy header for frame-ancestors directive.Affected if The application can be embedded in an iframe on external domains, indicating no clickjacking protection
If Desigo Insight version < 6.0 or = 6.0 is running and the X-Frame-Options header is absent from HTTP responses, the environment is vulnerable to clickjacking attacks.
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 data6.0
Configure the web server (or application) to send X-Frame-Options: DENY or X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN in all HTTP responses to prevent the application from being embedded in iframes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15793 — 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-2020-15793 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