CVE-2020-24683
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 · uneditedThe affected versions of S+ Operations (version 2.1 SP1 and earlier) used an approach for user authentication which relies on validation at the client node (client-side authentication). This is not as secure as having the server validate a client application before allowing a connection. Therefore, if the network communication or endpoints for these applications are not protected, unauthorized actors can bypass authentication and make unauthorized connections to the server application.
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 confidenceS+ Operations versions 2.1 SP1 and earlier rely on client-side authentication where the client validates itself rather than the server validating incoming client connections. This architectural flaw allows unauthorized actors to bypass authentication entirely and connect directly to the server if network communication or endpoints are unprotected.
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 product and versionLocate the installed ABB Symphony+ product (either Historian or Operations) and determine its exact version number from the application or system information panelAffected if The installed version matches 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
-
Determine authentication architectureReview the server configuration files or authentication settings to verify whether the server is performing validation of incoming client connections or relying on clients to validate themselvesAffected if The configuration shows client-side authentication is enabled where clients self-validate rather than the server validating each connection
-
Check network protection statusInspect network configuration and firewall rules to determine whether the communication endpoints and ports used by the product are exposed or protectedAffected if Network endpoints or ports used by the product are accessible without TLS encryption or network segmentation protection
-
Verify server-side validation is enforcedExamine the authentication logs or server settings to confirm that the server actively validates and authenticates every client before allowing connectionAffected if The server does not enforce validation of incoming client connections and instead trusts client credentials without server-side verification
A user is affected if they are running any of the listed affected versions AND the server relies on client-side authentication rather than validating incoming connections, with unprotected network access to the communication endpoints.
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.
dbcve · scopedMigrate to server-side authentication where the server validates all client connections before granting access, and implement network protections such as TLS encryption and network segmentation to protect communication channels.
Contact ABB for fixed release versions - available from ABB Technical Support
- Contact ABB Technical Support to obtain the fixed version for Symphony + Historian and Symphony + Operations that addresses the client-side authentication vulnerability (CVE-2020-24683)
- Request information about which specific versions include the proper server-side authentication validation fix
- Before upgrading, review the release notes for any breaking changes or compatibility considerations
- Plan maintenance window for upgrade as server-side authentication changes may require configuration adjustments
- After upgrade, verify that server-side authentication is properly enforced by testing authentication flow
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-24683 — 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-2020-24683 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