CVE-2020-6165
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 · uneditedSilverStripe 4.5.0 allows attackers to read certain records that should not have been placed into a result set. This affects silverstripe/recipe-cms. The automatic permission-checking mechanism in the silverstripe/graphql module does not provide complete protection against lists that are limited (e.g., through pagination), resulting in records that should have failed a permission check being added to the final result set. GraphQL endpoints are configured by default (e.g., for assets), but the admin/graphql endpoint is access protected by default. This limits the vulnerability to all authenticated users, including those with limited permissions (e.g., where viewing records exposed through admin/graphql requires administrator permissions). However, if custom GraphQL endpoints have been configured for a specific implementation (usually under /graphql), this vulnerability could also be exploited through unauthenticated requests. This vulnerability only applies to reading records; it does not allow unauthorised changing of records.
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 confidenceIn SilverStripe 4.5.0, the silverstripe/graphql module's automatic permission-checking mechanism fails to properly filter out unauthorized records when pagination or list limiting is applied. Records that should fail permission checks are incorrectly included in the final paginated result set, allowing authenticated users (or unauthenticated users if custom /graphql endpoints exist) to read records they shouldn't have access to.
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>= 3.2.0, < 3.2.4>= 3.2.5, < 3.3.0>= 4.5.0, < 4.5.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Identify silverstripe/graphql module versionCheck your project's composer.lock or vendor directory for the installed version of the silverstripe/graphql package. Run 'composer show silverstripe/graphql' or inspect the lock file.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: >= 3.2.0 and < 3.2.4, >= 3.2.5 and < 3.3.0, or >= 4.5.0 and < 4.5.3
-
Confirm GraphQL module is enabledCheck your SilverStripe configuration (usually in app/_config.php or mysite/_config.php) for GraphQL module registration and ensure the silverstripe/graphql module is actually enabled.Affected if The silverstripe/graphql module is installed and enabled in the application configuration
-
Verify GraphQL endpoint exposureCheck your web server configuration and SilverStripe routing to determine if /graphql endpoints are accessible. Inspect .htaccess, nginx configuration, or SilverStripe routing files for exposed GraphQL routes.Affected if Custom GraphQL endpoints under /graphql are exposed to unauthenticated users or the endpoint is publicly accessible
-
Check for DataObjects with permission controls exposed via GraphQLReview your GraphQL schema definitions (typically in _graphql.php config files) to identify which DataObject models are exposed through GraphQL queries, particularly those with owner-based or record-level permission checks defined.Affected if GraphQL queries expose DataObject models that implement permission checks (such as canView restrictions based on ownership or custom permission logic)
-
Identify paginated GraphQL query usageAudit your GraphQL queries and schema to determine if list queries with pagination (limit, offset, page parameters) are being used to fetch DataObjects with permission controls.Affected if Paginated GraphQL list queries are used to fetch DataObjects that have permission restrictions applied
Your environment is affected if silverstripe/graphql version falls within the affected ranges AND your GraphQL endpoint exposes DataObjects with record-level permission controls through paginated queries.
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 data3.2.43.3.04.5.3
Upgrade silverstripe/graphql to a patched version and audit GraphQL endpoint configurations, ensuring custom endpoints under /graphql are properly protected if exposed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6165 — 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-2020-6165 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