CVE-2020-4432
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 · uneditedCertain IBM Aspera applications are vulnerable to command injection after valid authentication, which could allow an attacker with intimate knowledge of the system to execute commands in a SOAP API. IBM X-Force ID: 180810.
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 confidenceIBM Aspera applications contain a command injection vulnerability in the SOAP API that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system. The vulnerability requires both valid authentication credentials and intimate knowledge of the system, indicating a relatively high attack complexity but severe potential impact if exploited.
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<= 3.7.4<= 3.7.4<= 3.9.3<= 3.9.3<= 3.9.10<= 1.4.3<= 3.7.4<= 3.7.4CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 installed IBM Aspera productList all installed IBM Aspera applications on the system using package manager or installed software inventory commands such as rpm -qa, dpkg -l, or checking /opt/aspera directory contentsAffected if The system has any IBM Aspera application installed that matches the affected product list (Application Platform, Faspex, High Speed Transfer Endpoint/Server, Proxy Server, Server, Shares - On Demand variants)
-
Check installed version against affected rangesDetermine the exact version of the installed IBM Aspera product using version lookup commands, typically found in product documentation, license information, or by querying the application itself (for example, aspera --version, faspex --version, or checking version files in the installation directory)Affected if The installed version falls within these ranges: Application Platform/Faspex/Server/Shares On Demand <= 3.7.4, High Speed Transfer Endpoint/Server <= 3.9.3, High Speed Transfer Server for Cloud Pak for Integration <= 3.9.10, Proxy Server <= 1.4.3
-
Verify SOAP API is enabled and accessibleCheck the IBM Aspera configuration files and service settings for SOAP API endpoint configuration. Look for SOAP service definitions in aspera.conf, httpd.conf for API endpoints, or use netstat/ss commands to detect listening ports associated with SOAP API (commonly ports 8080, 8443, or custom API ports)Affected if The SOAP API service is enabled and bound to a network interface that could be accessed by an attacker
-
Review SOAP API access controlsInspect authentication and authorization configuration for the SOAP API. Check aspera.conf or related configuration files for SOAP API user authentication settings, and verify whether SOAP API access is restricted to specific IP addresses or networksAffected if SOAP API allows authentication from untrusted networks or users, or uses default/weak credentials
-
Audit SOAP API user accountsReview the list of accounts with SOAP API access permissions. Check user configuration files, LDAP/AD integration settings if used, and verify that only necessary service accounts have SOAP API credentialsAffected if There are multiple user accounts with SOAP API access, or if any account has overly permissive API privileges
The environment is affected if any IBM Aspera product is installed with a version within the affected ranges AND the SOAP API is enabled and accessible, regardless of whether strong authentication is believed to be in place (since valid credentials are required for exploitation).
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 dataRestrict SOAP API access to authorized users only, implement strict input validation and sanitization on all SOAP API parameters, and apply any available IBM Aspera security patches. Consider network segmentation to limit exposure.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-4432 — 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-2020-4432 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