CVE-2020-35571
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in MantisBT through 2.24.3. In the helper_ensure_confirmed call in manage_custom_field_update.php, the custom field name is not sanitized. This may be problematic depending on CSP settings.
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 confidenceAn XSS vulnerability exists in MantisBT through version 2.24.3 where the custom field name parameter is not sanitized before being used in the helper_ensure_confirmed function within manage_custom_field_update.php, potentially allowing injection of malicious script content.
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<= 2.24.3CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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 MantisBT installation pathLocate the MantisBT web root directory, commonly found in /var/www/html/mantisbt, /opt/mantisbt, or C:\inetpub\mantisbt depending on your deployment.Affected if MantisBT is installed on the server.
-
Determine installed MantisBT versionCheck the version.php file in the core directory (e.g., /core/version.php) or view the footer of the login page which typically displays the version number.Affected if The installed version is 2.24.3 or lower.
-
Verify custom field management is accessibleLog in as an administrator or user with management permissions and navigate to the custom field management page (typically at /manage_custom_field_update.php or via Manage > Manage Custom Fields).Affected if The custom field management interface is accessible to your user account.
-
Confirm the vulnerable file existsVerify that manage_custom_field_update.php exists in the web root and is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The file exists and responds to requests.
-
Check user permissions for custom field modificationExamine the user permissions or user roles to determine if the account has rights to create or modify custom fields in MantisBT.Affected if The user has sufficient privileges to access the custom field update functionality.
Your environment is affected if MantisBT version 2.24.3 or lower is installed AND users with custom field management permissions can access manage_custom_field_update.php.
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 dataInput sanitization should be applied to the custom field name before use. Upgrading to a patched version of MantisBT is recommended; CSP headers may provide partial mitigation but should not be relied upon as the primary fix.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35571 — 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-2020-35571 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