CVE-2020-5679
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 · uneditedImproper restriction of rendered UI layers or frames in EC-CUBE versions from 3.0.0 to 3.0.18 leads to clickjacking attacks. If a user accesses a specially crafted page while logged into the administrative page, unintended operations may be conducted.
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 · high confidenceEC-CUBE versions 3.0.0-3.0.18 lack proper frame restriction headers, allowing the application to be embedded in iframes on malicious sites. This enables clickjacking attacks where invisible or disguised interface elements trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended administrative actions.
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>= 3.0.0, <= 3.0.18CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm EC-CUBE version is within affected rangeCheck the version number in the application (typically found in a config file like config.yml, or in the admin panel under System Information or Settings). Compare it to the affected versions: 3.0.0 through 3.0.18.Affected if The installed version is 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 3.0.5, 3.0.6, 3.0.7, 3.0.8, 3.0.9, 3.0.10, 3.0.11, 3.0.12, 3.0.13, 3.0.14, 3.0.15, 3.0.16, 3.0.17, or 3.0.18.
-
Inspect HTTP response for X-Frame-Options headerUse browser developer tools (Network tab), curl -I, or a web scanner to capture the HTTP response headers from the EC-CUBE site homepage or admin login page. Look for the X-Frame-Options header.Affected if The X-Frame-Options header is missing, or is set to ALLOW-FROM (which provides no protection in modern browsers), rather than DENY or SAMEORIGIN.
-
Inspect HTTP response for Content-Security-Policy frame-ancestorsCapture the HTTP response headers and check for a Content-Security-Policy or Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only header. Verify if it contains a frame-ancestors directive.Affected if The CSP header is missing entirely, or exists but does not include the frame-ancestors directive (or frame-ancestors is set to allow all origins).
A user is affected if they are running EC-CUBE version 3.0.0 through 3.0.18 AND neither X-Frame-Options (DENY/SAMEORIGIN) nor CSP frame-ancestors is present in HTTP responses.
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 dataConfigure the web server or application to send X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN header, or implement Content-Security-Policy with frame-ancestors directive to prevent the site from being rendered in iframes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5679 — 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-2020-5679 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