Dr.id Access ControlApplication · Secom

CVE-2020-3933

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-02-11
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 3.3.0.3_20160517 / 3.3.2 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
TAIWAN SECOM CO., LTD., a Door Access Control and Personnel Attendance Management system, allows attackers to enumerate and exam user account in the system.

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 confidence

The Taiwan Secom door access control and personnel attendance management system contains an information disclosure vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to enumerate valid user accounts in the system and examine their details. This is likely due to differing responses between valid and invalid usernames during authentication or account lookup operations.

MitigationImplement generic error messages for authentication failures to prevent username enumeration, combined with rate limiting and account lockout policies to deter automated enumeration attempts.

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
Dr.id Access ControlApplication
Affected:< 3.3.2
Dr.id Attendance SystemApplication
Affected:< 3.3.0.3_20160517

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
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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the Secom Dr.id product and version
    Locate the installed version of Secom Dr.id Access Control or Attendance System through the system administration interface, about page, or product documentation. Common locations include the login page footer, admin panel, or system information settings.
    Affected if The version is Dr.id Access Control < 3.3.2 or Attendance System < 3.3.0.3_20160517
  2. Test login response for valid versus invalid usernames
    Send authentication requests to the system's login endpoint using two different usernames: one known to be valid (if you have test credentials) and one random/invalid username. Compare the HTTP response codes, response times, and error messages returned for each.
    Affected if The system returns measurably different responses (such as different error messages, different HTTP status codes, or different response times) for valid usernames versus invalid usernames
  3. Check account lookup or password reset functionality
    If a separate account lookup, user registration, or password reset feature exists, test it with both known-valid and known-invalid usernames to see if responses differ.
    Affected if These endpoints also expose different responses that reveal whether a username exists in the system
  4. Verify error message configuration
    Examine the system's authentication error message configuration through the admin interface or configuration files. Look for settings that control whether login failures show generic versus specific error messages.
    Affected if Error messages are not generic and specifically indicate whether the username exists versus an incorrect password only

A defender is affected if they are running any version of Secom Dr.id Access Control below 3.3.2 or Attendance System below 3.3.0.3_20160517, and their system returns distinguishable responses that reveal whether a given username is valid in the system.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 3.3.0.3_20160517 / 3.3.2 or later
Fixed in 3.3.0.3_201605173.3.2
Interim mitigation

Implement generic error messages for authentication failures to prevent username enumeration, combined with rate limiting and account lockout policies to deter automated enumeration attempts.

Fix this in Dr.id Access Control Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3933 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-3933 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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