CVE-2020-35210
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 vulnerability in Atomix v3.1.5 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DoS) via a Raft session flooding attack using Raft OpenSessionRequest messages.
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 confidenceAtomix v3.1.5 contains a vulnerability where attackers can flood Raft sessions by sending excessive OpenSessionRequest messages, causing a denial of service. The Raft consensus protocol implementation lacks proper rate limiting or session quota controls on incoming session requests.
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<= 3.1.5CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify if Atomix is runningCheck for Java processes running Atomix: `jps -l` or `ps aux | grep -i atomix`, or look for atomix*.jar files in the systemAffected if Atomix process or JAR files are found on the system
-
Check Atomix versionInspect the Atomix JAR manifest: `unzip -p atomix*.jar META-INF/MANIFEST.MF`, or check pom.xml/build files for version 3.1.5 or lowerAffected if Installed version is 3.1.5 or any version lower than 3.1.5
-
Verify Raft protocol is in useLook for Raft-related configuration in Atomix config files (e.g., partition groups with Raft protocol type in YAML or JSON config files)Affected if Raft-based partition groups are configured in Atomix settings
-
Check for session rate limitingInspect Atomix configuration files for any session rate-limit, max-sessions, or quota settings related to Raft OpenSessionRequest handlingAffected if No rate limiting or session quota controls are configured for Raft sessions
User is affected if Atomix version 3.1.5 or lower is installed with Raft protocol enabled and no session rate limiting or quota controls are configured.
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 rate limiting and session quota restrictions on Raft OpenSessionRequest messages, or upgrade to a patched version if available. Network segmentation can also limit attack surface.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35210 — 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-2020-35210 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