CVE-2020-5929
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 · uneditedIn versions 13.0.0-13.0.0 HF2, 12.1.0-12.1.2 HF1, and 11.6.1-11.6.2, BIG-IP platforms with Cavium Nitrox SSL hardware acceleration cards, a Virtual Server configured with a Client SSL profile, and using Anonymous (ADH) or Ephemeral (DHE) Diffie-Hellman key exchange and Single DH use option not enabled in the options list may be vulnerable to crafted SSL/TLS Handshakes that may result with a PMS (Pre-Master Secret) that starts in a 0 byte and may lead to a recovery of plaintext messages as BIG-IP TLS/SSL ADH/DHE sends different error messages acting as an oracle. Similar error messages when PMS starts with 0 byte coupled with very precise timing measurement observation may also expose this vulnerability.
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 confidenceBIG-IP platforms with Cavium Nitrox SSL hardware acceleration cards running affected versions (13.0.0-13.0.0 HF2, 12.1.0-12.1.2 HF1, 11.6.1-11.6.2) are vulnerable when a Virtual Server uses a Client SSL profile configured with Anonymous (ADH) or Ephemeral (DHE) Diffie-Hellman key exchange WITHOUT the 'Single DH use' option enabled. Crafted SSL/TLS handshakes can cause the Pre-Master Secret (PMS) to begin with a 0 byte, and the different error messages (or timing differences) sent by BIG-IP's TLS/SSL ADH/DHE implementation serve as an oracle, enabling recovery of plaintext messages through a variant of the Lucky Thirteen or similar timing attack.
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>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0>= 11.6.1, < 11.6.2>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.2= 11.6.2= 12.1.2= 13.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Check BIG-IP versionRun `tmsh show sys version` or view System > Software Information in the GUIAffected if Version is 11.6.1, 11.6.2, 12.1.0, 12.1.1, 12.1.2, or 13.0.0 (or between 13.0.0 and 13.0.0 HF2 if hotfixes are listed)
-
Verify Cavium Nitrox SSL hardware acceleration card is presentRun `tmsh show sys hardware` and look for Cavium Nitrox or similar SSL accelerator module in the hardware inventoryAffected if The system has a Cavium Nitrox SSL hardware acceleration card installed
-
Identify Client SSL profiles using ADH or DHE ciphersRun `tmsh list ltm profile client-ssl all` and inspect the `ciphers` or `cipher-group` settings for ADH or DHE cipher stringsAffected if Any Client SSL profile contains Anonymous DH (ADH) or standard DHE cipher suites
-
Check if Single DH use option is disabledFor each Client SSL profile using ADH/DHE, run `tmsh list ltm profile client-ssl <profile_name>` and look for the `single-dh-use` settingAffected if The profile uses ADH or DHE ciphers AND single-dh-use is set to `disabled` or not present (default is disabled)
You are affected if your BIG-IP version is in the affected list, has a Cavium Nitrox SSL accelerator, and you have a Client SSL profile using ADH or DHE ciphers with Single DH use disabled.
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 data11.6.212.1.2
Enable the 'Single DH use' option in the Client SSL profile options list, or preferably disable ADH/DHE cipher suites entirely and use ephemeral elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key exchange instead.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5929 — 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-2020-5929 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