AnsibleApplication · Redhat
CVE-2020-25636
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 flaw was found in Ansible Base when using the aws_ssm connection plugin as there is no namespace separation for file transfers. Files are written directly to the root bucket, making possible to have collisions when running multiple ansible processes. This issue affects mainly the service availability.
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 confidenceThe aws_ssm connection plugin in Ansible Base lacks namespace isolation for file transfers, causing all files to be written directly to the root S bucket without any prefix or segregation. When multiple Ansible processes run concurrently using this plugin, file name collisions occur because there is no unique identifier distinguishing each process's transferred files, leading to corrupted or overwritten data and service availability issues.
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
AnsibleApplication
= 2.10.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Verify Ansible versionRun 'ansible --version' or check the installed ansible-base package versionAffected if Version is exactly 2.10.1 (the only affected version listed)
-
Confirm aws_ssm connection plugin is in useSearch inventory files, playbooks, or group_vars for 'ansible_connection: aws_ssm' or look for 'aws_ssm' in connection settingsAffected if The aws_ssm connection plugin is configured and active in any inventory or playbook
-
Check for concurrent execution potentialReview automation workflows, cron jobs, or CI/CD pipelines to determine if multiple Ansible processes using aws_ssm could run simultaneouslyAffected if Multiple Ansible processes using aws_ssm can execute concurrently
-
Inspect S3 bucket file structureList objects in the target S3 bucket used by aws_ssm; examine if files transferred by the plugin appear at the root level without process-specific prefixesAffected if Transferred files appear at bucket root without any namespace prefix or isolation
You are affected if running Ansible 2.10.1 with aws_ssm connection plugin and multiple concurrent executions can occur, causing file collisions in the S3 bucket root.
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 dataImplement namespace separation (e.g., process-specific prefixes or temporary directories) in the aws_ssm connection plugin for file transfers, or ensure only a single Ansible process uses the plugin at any given time.
Fix this in Ansible
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-25636 — 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-2020-25636 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