CVE-2020-6020
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 · uneditedCheck Point Security Management's Internal CA web management before Jumbo HFAs R80.10 Take 278, R80.20 Take 160, R80.30 Take 210, and R80.40 Take 38, can be manipulated to run commands as a high privileged user or crash, due to weak input validation on inputs by a trusted management administrator.
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 confidenceCheck Point Security Management's Internal CA web management interface has a command injection vulnerability due to weak input validation. A trusted management administrator can manipulate inputs to execute commands as a high privileged user or cause a denial of service by crashing the system. The vulnerability affects multiple versions before their respective Take numbers (R80.10<278, R80.20<160, R80.30<210, R80.40<38).
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< r80.20= r80.20< r80.30= r80.30< r80.40= r80.40< r80.10= r80.10CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
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.
-
Identify the Check Point Security Management versionLog into the Security Management server and run 'cpinfo -y all' or check the Gaia operating system dashboard for the version (R80.10, R80.20, R80.30, or R80.40)Affected if The version is any of R80.10, R80.20, R80.30, or R80.40 in the R80.x family
-
Check the installed Take numberRun 'cpinfo -y all' and locate the Take number in the output, or check the SmartConsole splash screen which displays the Take numberAffected if The Take number is below 278 for R80.10, below 160 for R80.20, below 210 for R80.30, or below 38 for R80.40
-
Verify if ICA Management Portal is enabledAccess the web management interface at the default URL (typically https://<management-server>/ICA_Mgmt_Portal) or check the SmartDashboard for ICA Management Portal settings under the Management objectAffected if The ICA Management Portal web interface is accessible and enabled on the system
-
Confirm management administrator access existsCheck for existing trusted management administrator accounts in SmartDashboard under Users or in the Gaia portal under Users & PrivilegesAffected if There is at least one management administrator account configured with access to the Security Management server
You are affected if your system runs R80.10 (Take < 278), R80.20 (Take < 160), R80.30 (Take < 210), or R80.40 (Take < 38), and the ICA Management Portal web interface is enabled and accessible.
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-supplied Jumbo Hotfix Accumulator (HFA) for the specific Check Point version in use (Take 278 for R80.10, Take 160 for R80.20, Take 210 for R80.30, or Take 38 for R80.40). Prior to deployment, validate the patch in a non-production environment due to the management infrastructure scope.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6020 — 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-2020-6020 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