Big Ip Access Policy ManagerApplication · F5
CVE-2020-5934
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 APM 15.1.0-15.1.0.5, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, and 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, when multiple HTTP requests from the same client to configured SAML Single Logout (SLO) URL are passing through a TCP Keep-Alive connection, traffic to TMM can be disrupted.
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 confidenceOn BIG-IP APM versions 15.1.0-15.1.0.5, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, and 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, a vulnerability exists where multiple HTTP requests from the same client to a configured SAML Single Logout (SLO) URL traversing a TCP Keep-Alive connection can cause traffic disruption to the TMM (Traffic Management Module), resulting in a denial-of-service condition.
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 Access Policy ManagerApplication
>= 13.1.0, < 13.1.3.4>= 14.1.0, < 14.1.2.4>= 15.1.0, < 15.1.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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.
-
Verify BIG-IP APM module is provisionedRun 'tmsh list sys provision' or check the BIG-IP configuration for apm provision levelAffected if APM module is not provisioned (the vulnerability only applies to systems with APM enabled)
-
Check BIG-IP APM versionRun 'tmsh show sys version' or 'bigpipe version' to retrieve the installed versionAffected if Version is 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, or 15.1.0-15.1.0.5 (versions before the patched releases)
-
Identify if SAML SLO is configuredReview APM Access Policy > SAML > SLO configuration, or run 'tmsh list apm saml slo' to list configured Single Logout objectsAffected if A SAML SLO URL is configured and active on the BIG-IP APM
-
Confirm TCP Keep-Alive is enabled for APM connectionsCheck the APM profile or virtual server settings for TCP Keep-Alive configuration, or inspect the underlying TCP profile associated with the SAML SLO virtual serverAffected if TCP Keep-Alive is enabled on the connection handling SAML SLO traffic
You are affected if you have a vulnerable BIG-IP APM version AND have SAML SLO configured with TCP Keep-Alive enabled, as this specific combination triggers the TMM denial-of-service condition.
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 data13.1.3.414.1.2.415.1.1
Apply the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a non-vulnerable BIG-IP APM version. Until patched, consider disabling TCP Keep-Alive for SAML SLO connections or implementing rate limiting on SLO endpoints.
Fix this in Big Ip Access Policy Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5934 — 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-2020-5934 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