Big Ip Application Security ManagerApplication · F5
CVE-2020-5879
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 · uneditedOn BIG-IP ASM 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, under certain configurations, the BIG-IP system sends data plane traffic to back-end servers unencrypted, even when a Server SSL profile is applied.
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 confidenceIn BIG-IP ASM versions 11.6.1 through 11.6.5.1, a configuration handling flaw causes the system to send backend server traffic unencrypted despite having a Server SSL profile explicitly applied. This exposes sensitive data in transit between the BIG-IP data plane and back-end servers.
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
Big Ip Application Security ManagerApplication
>= 11.6.1, <= 11.6.5.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify BIG-IP ASM versionCheck the installed BIG-IP ASM version using the command 'tmsh show /asm version' or through the web UI under System > Software Management > BIG-IP [version] > DetailsAffected if Version is between 11.6.1 and 11.6.5.1 inclusive
-
Confirm Server SSL profile is appliedReview the virtual server configuration to verify a Server SSL profile is explicitly assigned. Use 'tmsh list /ltm virtual <name> profile server-ssl' or check via the web UIAffected if A Server SSL profile is explicitly applied to the virtual server processing the traffic
-
Verify ASM policy is activeConfirm an ASM security policy is enforced on the virtual server handling backend traffic. Use 'tmsh show /asm policy' or check via the web UI under Security > Application Security > PoliciesAffected if An ASM security policy is active and the virtual server is processing production traffic
-
Inspect backend traffic encryptionCapture and inspect traffic between BIG-IP and backend servers (e.g., via packet capture or tcpdump) to verify whether SSL/TLS encryption is actually being appliedAffected if Backend traffic is transmitted in plaintext while a Server SSL profile is configured on the affected version
User is affected if BIG-IP ASM version is between 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, a Server SSL profile is explicitly applied, and backend traffic is observed going unencrypted despite the profile 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 the vendor patch for BIG-IP ASM 11.6.5.1 or later, and verify that Server SSL profiles are correctly bound and functioning to ensure backend traffic is encrypted.
Fix this in Big Ip Application Security Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5879 — 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-2020-5879 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