CVE-2020-5778
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 · uneditedA flaw exists in Trading Technologies Messaging 7.1.28.3 (ttmd.exe) due to improper validation of user-supplied data when processing a type 8 message sent to default TCP RequestPort 10200. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this issue, via a specially crafted message, to terminate ttmd.exe.
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 confidenceA denial of service vulnerability exists in Trading Technologies Messaging 7.1.28.3 (ttmd.exe) due to improper validation of user-supplied data when processing type 8 messages sent to the default TCP RequestPort 10200. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted message to terminate the ttmd.exe 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= 7.1.28.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if ttmd.exe process is runningOpen Task Manager or run 'tasklist | findstr ttmd.exe' in command prompt to see if the Trading Technologies Messaging service process is activeAffected if ttmd.exe process is found running on the system
-
Verify the installed version of Trading Technologies MessagingRight-click on ttmd.exe in the installation directory (typically in Program Files\Trading Technologies) and view Properties > Details to check the File Version, or run 'wmic product where "name like '%Trading%'" get version,name'Affected if The displayed version is exactly 7.1.28.3
-
Confirm TCP port 10200 is listeningRun 'netstat -an | findstr :10200' or use PowerShell 'Get-NetTCPConnection -LocalPort 10200' to check if the RequestPort is open and listeningAffected if Port 10200 shows as LISTENING or ESTABLISHED, indicating the service is accepting connections
-
Identify if the service is exposed to unauthenticated network accessCheck firewall rules with 'netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all' or consult network documentation to determine if TCP port 10200 is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if Port 10200 is exposed to external/untrusted networks without network segmentation or access controls
A system is affected if it is running Trading Technologies Messaging version 7.1.28.3 with ttmd.exe active and TCP port 10200 accessible on the network.
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 network access to TCP port 10200 via firewall or network segmentation to prevent unauthenticated remote attackers from reaching the service. Apply vendor patches when available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5778 — 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-2020-5778 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