CVE-2020-25169
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 Reolink P2P products do not sufficiently protect data transferred between the local device and Reolink servers. This can allow an attacker to access sensitive information, such as camera feeds.
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 confidenceReolink P2P products fail to properly encrypt or protect data in transit between the local camera device and Reolink's cloud servers. An attacker positioned on the network path (e.g., via man-in-the-middle) can intercept and access sensitive video streams and other data.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify Reolink camera models on your networkCheck your network devices or camera inventory for Reolink models Rln8 410, Rlc 422, Rlc 510a, Rlc 410, Rlc 423s, Rlc 423, or Rlc 520a. Access the camera's web interface or use network scanning tools to confirm the model number.Affected if Any of these specific Reolink camera models are present on your network
-
Verify P2P cloud connectivity is enabledLog into the camera's web interface and check the settings for P2P, cloud, or remote access configuration. Look for options labeled 'P2P', 'Cloud', 'Reolink Cloud', or similar remote connectivity features.Affected if P2P or cloud connectivity is enabled on the camera
-
Confirm firmware versionIn the camera's web interface, navigate to the 'About', 'Info', or 'System' settings page to view the installed firmware version. Compare against the affected list - note that all versions are affected.Affected if The camera is running any firmware version on the affected models list (all versions are vulnerable)
-
Inspect network traffic encryptionUse a packet capture tool on your network to capture traffic between the camera and external IP addresses. Examine the protocol used - check if traffic to Reolink cloud servers (typically ports 9000-9008 or similar) is unencrypted or uses non-TLS protocols.Affected if Traffic to Reolink cloud servers is transmitted without TLS/SSL encryption
You are affected if you have any of the listed Reolink camera models (Rln8 410, Rlc 422, Rlc 510a, Rlc 410, Rlc 423s, Rlc 423, Rlc 520a) with P2P or cloud connectivity enabled on your network.
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 dataThe vendor must implement proper encryption (TLS/SSL or equivalent) for all P2P communications. As an interim compensating control, organizations should route camera traffic through a VPN or place cameras on an isolated network segment.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-25169 — 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-2020-25169 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