CVE-2020-6201
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 · uneditedThe SAP Commerce (Testweb Extension), versions- 6.6, 6.7, 1808, 1811, 1905, does not sufficiently encode user-controlled inputs, due to which certain GET URL parameters are reflected in the HTTP responses without escaping/sanitization, leading to Reflected Cross Site Scripting.
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 confidenceSAP Commerce Testweb Extension versions 6.6, 6.7, 1808, 1811, and 1905 contain a reflected Cross Site Scripting vulnerability where GET URL parameters are returned in HTTP responses without proper encoding, allowing injection of malicious scripts via unsanitized user input.
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= 6.6= 6.7= 1808= 1811= 1905CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 installed SAP Commerce versionAccess the SAP Commerce Admin Console or check the version information in the installation directory. Common locations include the version.info file or the hac (Hybris Administration Console) /about endpoint.Affected if The installed version matches 6.6, 6.7, 1808, 1811, or 1905 exactly.
-
Confirm Testweb Extension is deployedCheck the SAP Commerce configuration files (localextensions.xml or similar) for the presence of the testweb extension module. This extension is typically found in the /bin/ext-test/testweb directory of the SAP Commerce installation.Affected if The testweb extension is present and loaded in the Commerce platform configuration.
-
Verify if Testweb functionality is accessibleAttempt to access the Testweb endpoint URLs in your environment. These typically follow patterns like /testweb/ or contain 'testweb' in the path. Check if these endpoints are reachable without authentication restrictions.Affected if Testweb endpoints are accessible and accept user-supplied URL parameters.
-
Test for reflected parameter vulnerabilitySend a GET request to any accessible Testweb URL with a test parameter containing a harmless XSS probe string (such as <script>alert(1)</script>) and observe if this string is reflected unencoded in the HTTP response body.Affected if The submitted parameter value is returned in the response without HTML encoding or sanitization.
Your environment is affected if you are running SAP Commerce Cloud versions 6.6, 6.7, 1808, 1811, or 1905 with the Testweb Extension enabled and accessible, and URL parameters are reflected in responses without proper encoding.
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 SAP security patch for CVE-2020-6201 and ensure all user-supplied URL parameters are properly validated and output-encoded before being reflected in responses.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6201 — 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-2020-6201 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