CVE-2020-1825
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 · uneditedFusionAccess with versions earlier than 6.5.1.SPC002 have a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability. Due to insufficient verification on specific input, attackers can exploit this vulnerability by sending constructed messages to the affected device through another device on the same network. Successful exploit could cause affected devices to be abnormal.
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 · moderate confidenceFusionAccess versions before 6.5.1.SPC002 contain a Denial of Service vulnerability due to insufficient input validation. Attackers on the same network segment can send specially crafted messages to affected devices, causing them to become abnormal or unresponsive.
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< 6.5.1.spc002CVSS 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 FusionAccess versionLog into the FusionAccess management console or check the system about/version information page. The version is typically displayed in the administrator interface under System > About or similar administration sections.Affected if The displayed version is earlier than 6.5.1.SPC002 (for example, 6.5.0, 6.3.x, or any build prior to 6.5.1.SPC002).
-
Verify management interface accessibilityAttempt to access the FusionAccess management portal via HTTPS from a network location. Confirm the portal responds normally.Affected if The vulnerability requires network connectivity to the affected FusionAccess interface. Check whether the management or related service ports (such as 443, 8443, or the FusionAccess-specific service ports) are exposed to the network segment where untrusted attackers could reside.
You are affected if your FusionAccess installation version is earlier than 6.5.1.SPC002 and the service is network-accessible to potential attackers on your local segment.
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 data6.5.1.spc002
Upgrade FusionAccess to version 6.5.1.SPC002 or later to address the insufficient input validation vulnerability.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-1825 — 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-2020-1825 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