CVE-2020-24680
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 · uneditedIn S+ Operations and S+ Historian, the passwords of internal users (not Windows Users) are encrypted but improperly stored in a database.
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 confidenceIn S+ Operations and S+ Historian, internal user credentials are encrypted but stored insecurely in the database. This improper storage likely involves weak or reversible encryption rather than proper password hashing, potentially allowing attackers with database access to recover plaintext passwords.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/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 product and versionLocate the installed Symphony+ Operations or Historian application and determine its exact version number from the application UI, installation directory, or system informationAffected if The version is 3.0 or 3.1 for Historian, or 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3 for Operations
-
Verify internal user accounts existCheck the application database or user management interface for the presence of internal (local) user accounts used for authenticationAffected if Internal user accounts are configured in the system
-
Inspect credential storage format in databaseAccess the application database and examine the table(s) storing user credentials. Look at the password field structure - check if values appear as fixed-length strings (suggesting hashed passwords) or variable-length encrypted stringsAffected if Password fields contain encrypted (reversible) values rather than irreversibly hashed values, or if the same encryption key appears to be used across multiple accounts
-
Check database access controlsReview database permissions and access logs to determine if unauthorized users or processes could read credential storage tablesAffected if Database tables containing user credentials are readable by accounts other than designated administrators
A user is affected if they are running one of the listed versions (Historian 3.0/3.1 or Operations 1.1 through 3.3) and have internal user accounts with credentials stored using reversible encryption rather than cryptographic hashing.
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 dataReplace encryption-based password storage with salted cryptographic hashing (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2) and ensure database access controls are properly configured to prevent unauthorized credential extraction.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-24680 — 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-2020-24680 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