CVE-2020-4434
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 buffer overflow based on the product configuration and valid authentication, which could allow an attacker with intimate knowledge of the system to execute arbitrary code or perform a denial-of-service (DoS) through the http fallback service. IBM X-Force ID: 180900.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in IBM Aspera applications affecting the http fallback service. Requires valid authentication and intimate system knowledge for exploitation, allowing authenticated attackers to potentially execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service.
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 productsReview installed software or check for Aspera services running on the system. Common installation paths include /opt/aspera, /usr/local/aspera, or check via package manager (rpm -qa | grep aspera or dpkg -l | grep aspera)Affected if Any IBM Aspera product from the affected list is installed
-
Determine product versionRun the product-specific version command (typically 'aspera --version', 'asperacentral --version', or check version files in the installation directory such as VERSION.txt or aspera-license.xml)Affected if Version is at or below the affected threshold (3.7.4 for On Demand products, 3.9.3 for High Speed Transfer Server/Endpoint, 3.9.10 for Cloud Pak, 1.4.3 for Proxy Server)
-
Check if http fallback service is enabledInspect the Aspera configuration file (aspera.conf) for the 'http_fallback' or 'http_fallback_enabled' setting, typically found in /opt/aspera/etc/ or the installation etc directoryAffected if http fallback service is configured and enabled in the Aspera configuration
-
Verify service exposureCheck network configuration and firewall rules to determine if the http fallback service port (typically port 8080 or 9090) is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if The http fallback service is exposed to network access beyond trusted authenticated users
You are affected if you have any IBM Aspera product installed at a version at or below the affected threshold AND the http fallback service is enabled in your configuration.
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 dataApply IBM security patches for Aspera applications and review/configure the http fallback service settings to reduce exposure. Restrict access to the service to trusted, authenticated users only.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-4434 — 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-2020-4434 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