CVE-2020-37168
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 · uneditedEcommerce Systempay 1.0 contains a weak cryptographic implementation vulnerability that allows attackers to brute force the 16-character production secret key used for payment signature generation. Attackers can extract payment form data and signatures from POST requests to the payment endpoint, then use SHA1 hash comparison to iteratively test key candidates until discovering the correct production key, enabling them to forge valid payment signatures and manipulate transaction amounts.
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 confidenceEcommerce Systempay 1.0 uses a weak cryptographic implementation where a 16-character production secret key for payment signature generation can be brute forced. Attackers extract payment form data and signatures from POST requests, then use SHA1 hash comparison to iteratively test key candidates until discovering the correct key, enabling them to forge valid payment signatures and manipulate transaction amounts.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Systempay installationLocate the Systempay application files and check the version identifier in the main application files, configuration, or composer.json/package.json if presentAffected if The application is Ecommerce Systempay version 1.0 or the version cannot be determined but matches the product described
-
Locate secret key configurationSearch configuration files for parameters related to payment signatures - look for keys named 'secret_key', 'signature_key', 'SystempayKey', or similar in config files, environment variables, or database settingsAffected if A 16-character alphanumeric secret key is found being used for payment signature generation
-
Verify hash algorithm used for signaturesExamine the payment signature generation code or logic - search for SHA1 usage in signature calculation functions, typically found in payment processing modulesAffected if SHA1 is used as the hash algorithm for generating payment signatures
-
Check payment endpoint exposureReview the payment form submission endpoint (typically the POST handler for payment processing) and verify whether rate limiting, IP blocking, or CAPTCHA is implemented on signature verification attemptsAffected if The payment signature verification endpoint lacks rate limiting or brute force protection
-
Inspect signature validation logicReview the signature validation routine to confirm it accepts signatures computed with an externally-provided key candidate and performs direct SHA1 comparison without additional safeguardsAffected if The signature validation performs direct SHA1 comparison and can be exploited through iterative key testing
A user is affected if they are running Ecommerce Systempay 1.0 with a 16-character secret key using SHA1 for payment signatures on an unprotected endpoint.
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 dataImmediately rotate the compromised 16-character production secret key to a new, cryptographically strong key, and implement additional protections such as rate limiting on signature verification endpoints to prevent brute force attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-37168 — 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-2020-37168 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