Simple SlabApplication · Simple Slab Project
CVE-2020-35893
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 the simple-slab crate before 0.3.3 for Rust. remove() has an off-by-one error, causing memory leakage and a drop of uninitialized memory.
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 confidenceThe simple-slab crate before version 0.3.3 contains an off-by-one error in its remove() function. This causes memory to be leaked during removal operations and can result in uninitialized memory being dropped, leading to undefined behavior.
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
Simple SlabApplication
< 0.3.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Locate simple-slab dependency in your projectSearch your project's Cargo.toml file for 'simple-slab' under [dependencies] or [dev-dependencies] sectionsAffected if simple-slab is listed as a dependency and its version is below 0.3.3
-
Check the locked version in Cargo.lockOpen Cargo.lock and search for 'name = "simple-slab"' then read the 'version' field directly below itAffected if The version field shows a version lower than 0.3.3 (for example, 0.3.2, 0.3.1, 0.3.0, etc.)
-
Verify if your code calls the remove() functionSearch your Rust source files for calls to remove() on a Slab type, for example: 'slab.remove(index)' or similar patternsAffected if Your code invokes the remove() method on a simple-slab Slab instance and the crate version is below 0.3.3
-
Search for simple-slab in Cargo.lock onlyIf you do not have direct source access, check Cargo.lock for any entry containing 'name = "simple-slab"' to determine if the crate is transitively included as a dependencyAffected if Cargo.lock contains simple-slab with a version field below 0.3.3
You are affected if your project depends on the simple-slab crate at a version lower than 0.3.3 and your code invokes the remove() method on a Slab instance.
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 data0.3.3
Upgrade the simple-slab crate to version 0.3.3 or later to resolve the off-by-one error in the remove() function.
Fix this in Simple Slab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35893 — 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-2020-35893 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