EfrontApplication · Epignosishq

CVE-2020-28597

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2021-03-03
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A predictable seed vulnerability exists in the password reset functionality of Epignosis EfrontPro 5.2.21. By predicting the seed it is possible to generate the correct password reset 1-time token. An attacker can visit the password reset supplying the password reset token to reset the password of an account of their choice.

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 confidence

A predictable seed vulnerability in Epignosis EfrontPro 5.2.21 allows attackers to generate valid password reset tokens. The token generation uses a predictable seed rather than cryptographically secure randomness, enabling attackers to calculate the correct 1-time token for any account and reset passwords arbitrarily.

MitigationImplement cryptographically secure random token generation using a proper CSPRNG, and consider adding secondary verification such as email-based confirmation with time-limited tokens.

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
EfrontApplication
Affected:= 5.2.17= 5.2.21

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Efront version
    Access the application admin panel and navigate to System > Configuration > System Info, or check the version number in the footer of the login page. Alternatively, inspect the /libraries/version.php file if accessible via file system.
    Affected if The installed version is 5.2.17 or 5.2.21 exactly.
  2. Confirm password reset feature is enabled
    Check the application's configuration settings under System > Configuration > Email Settings to verify that the password reset functionality is turned on, or attempt to access the /forgot_password.php endpoint.
    Affected if Password reset functionality is enabled and accessible to end users.
  3. Examine token generation mechanism
    Review the source code files responsible for password reset token generation, typically found in /libraries/ or /src/ directories (such as forgot_password.php, user_class.php, or similar). Look for token generation logic that does not use functions like random_bytes() or openssl_random_pseudo_bytes().
    Affected if The token generation uses a predictable seed, non-cryptographic random functions (like mt_rand()), or lacks explicit use of a CSPRNG.
  4. Check application logs for token patterns
    If access to application logs is available, review logs for password reset requests and examine whether tokens follow predictable patterns or sequential generation.
    Affected if Tokens appear sequential, time-based without proper randomization, or follow a discernible pattern.

A user is affected if their Efront installation is version 5.2.17 or 5.2.21, the password reset feature is enabled, and the token generation relies on predictable randomness rather than a cryptographically secure random number generator.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement cryptographically secure random token generation using a proper CSPRNG, and consider adding secondary verification such as email-based confirmation with time-limited tokens.

Fix this in Efront Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-28597 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-28597 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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