CVE-2020-24679
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 S+ Operations and S+ Historian service is subject to a DoS by special crafted messages. An attacker might use this flaw to make it crash or even execute arbitrary code on the machine where the service is hosted.
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 confidenceS+ Operations and S+ Historian services contain a denial-of-service vulnerability where specially crafted messages can cause the service to crash. The critical severity (9.8) indicates the vulnerability may also allow arbitrary code execution on the host machine.
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= 3.0= 3.1= 1.1= 2.0= 2.1= 3.0= 3.1= 3.2= 3.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed ABB Symphony+ Historian versionCheck the installed version of ABB Symphony+ Historian on the system, typically found in the program's About or Version information, or via system inventory tools that list installed softwareAffected if The installed version is 3.0 or 3.1
-
Identify installed ABB Symphony+ Operations versionCheck the installed version of ABB Symphony+ Operations on the system, typically found in the program's About or Version information, or via system inventory tools that list installed softwareAffected if The installed version is 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3
-
Verify if affected services are runningCheck if the ABB Symphony+ Historian or ABB Symphony+ Operations services are currently running on the hostAffected if Either service is running and the version matches an affected version from the lists above
A system is affected if ABB Symphony+ Historian (version 3.0 or 3.1) or ABB Symphony+ Operations (versions 1.1 through 3.3) is installed and the respective service is running.
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 available vendor patches for S+ Operations and S+ Historian; until patched, restrict network access to these services and implement input validation at network boundaries.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-24679 — 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-2020-24679 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