CVE-2020-29024
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 · uneditedSensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute vulnerability in (GTA) GoToAppliance of Secomea GateManager could allow an attacker to gain access to sensitive cookies. This issue affects: Secomea GateManager all versions prior to 9.3.
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 confidenceSecomea GateManager versions prior to 9.3 transmit sensitive cookies over HTTPS without the 'Secure' attribute, allowing these cookies to potentially be sent over unencrypted connections or intercepted in man-in-the-middle scenarios.
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 versions< 9.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 your GateManager modelAccess the device administration interface or check the device label/documentation to determine if the model is 4250, 4260, 9250, or 8250Affected if The model is 4250, 4260, or 9250 (all versions are affected) or model is 8250 (further version check required)
-
Determine the firmware versionLog into the GateManager admin panel or use the device's version/status command to retrieve the installed firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version cannot be determined or is below 9.3 for model 8250, or any version for models 4250/4260/9250
-
For model 8250, compare version to 9.3Check if the installed firmware version is semantically less than 9.3 (e.g., 9.2, 9.1, 9.0, 8.x)Affected if The version is below 9.3 (e.g., 9.2.x or earlier)
-
Inspect cookie headers for Secure attributeCapture an HTTPS response from the GateManager web interface using browser developer tools or a network proxy. Look at the Set-Cookie headers in the responseAffected if The Set-Cookie headers do not contain the Secure flag (e.g., Set-Cookie: sessionid=... without the ; Secure suffix)
-
Verify if cookies can leak over HTTPAttempt to access the GateManager interface over HTTP (port 80) and observe whether cookies are still transmittedAffected if Cookies are transmitted over HTTP or the server allows HTTP connections
You are affected if you have a 4250, 4260, or 9250 model at any version, or an 8250 model with firmware below 9.3, and your cookies are missing the Secure flag in Set-Cookie headers.
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 data9.3
Upgrade Secomea GateManager to version 9.3 or later which includes the fix for this vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-29024 — 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-2020-29024 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