CVE-2020-25680
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 JBCS httpd in version 2.4.37 SP3, where it uses a back-end worker SSL certificate with the keystore file's ID is 'unknown'. The validation of the certificate whether CN and hostname are matching stopped working and allow connecting to the back-end work. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity.
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 confidenceJBoss HTTP server 2.4.37 SP3 has a broken SSL certificate validation mechanism for back-end worker connections. The keystore file's ID is set to 'unknown', causing the CN and hostname matching validation to fail completely. This allows connections to back-end workers without proper certificate validation, threatening data integrity.
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= 2.4.37CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 JBoss HTTP server versionRun 'rpm -q jboss-core-services-httpd' or check the installed package version for Red Hat JBoss Core Services HTTPdAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.4.37 (SP3)
-
Locate keystore configuration for back-end worker SSLFind the configuration file that defines the keystore for SSL connections to back-end workers (commonly in server.xml or similar SSL connector configuration)Affected if The keystore configuration exists and SSL back-end worker connections are configured
-
Inspect keystore ID attributeOpen the keystore configuration file and locate the keystore ID or alias parameter - look for a field that identifies the keystore (such as 'keyAlias' or keystore ID in the SSL connector definition)Affected if The keystore ID is set to 'unknown' or a value that prevents proper certificate validation
-
Verify SSL certificate validation behaviorAttempt a test connection to a back-end worker using SSL and inspect whether certificate CN and hostname validation is actually performed or silently bypassedAffected if Connections succeed without proper certificate chain validation or hostname/CN matching checks
You are affected if you are running JBoss HTTP server version 2.4.37 with SSL back-end worker connections enabled and the keystore ID is set to 'unknown', causing certificate validation to fail.
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 or reconfigure the keystore file with the correct ID so that SSL certificate CN/hostname validation can function properly, or enforce proper SSL certificate chain validation for back-end worker connections.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-25680 — 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-2020-25680 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