CVE-2020-6855
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 · uneditedA large or infinite loop vulnerability in the JOC Cockpit component of SOS JobScheduler 1.11 and 1.13.2 allows attackers to parameterize housekeeping jobs in a way that exhausts system resources and results in a denial of service.
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 · moderate confidenceThe JOC Cockpit component in SOS JobScheduler versions 1.11 and 1.13.2 contains a large or infinite loop vulnerability triggered when attackers parameterize housekeeping jobs with specially crafted input values. This causes uncontrolled iteration that exhausts system resources (CPU, memory) leading to denial of service.
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= 1.11= 1.13.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify JOC Cockpit installationLocate the SOS JobScheduler installation directory and check for the JOC Cockpit web application component (typically in the 'joc' or 'joccockpit' folder within the webapps or similar directory)Affected if JOC Cockpit component is present in the JobScheduler installation
-
Check JobScheduler versionRun 'java -jar scheduler.jar -version' or check the 'version.txt'/'VERSION' file in the JobScheduler root directory, or query the JOC Cockpit API endpoint /joc/api/commoninfoAffected if Installed version equals 1.11 or 1.13.2 exactly
-
Identify configured housekeeping jobsReview JobScheduler job configuration files (XML job definitions in the 'jobs' or 'config' directories) for jobs with 'housekeeping' in the name or purpose, or query JOC Cockpit API /joc/api/jobAffected if Housekeeping jobs are configured and active in the scheduler
-
Inspect job parameters for housekeeping jobsExamine the parameter definitions in housekeeping job configuration files, particularly any parameters that control iteration count, date ranges, or file selection patternsAffected if Housekeeping jobs accept external parameters without strict input validation constraints
The environment is affected if JOC Cockpit is installed with SOS JobScheduler version 1.11 or 1.13.2 AND housekeeping jobs are configured with parameters that accept user-controlled input values.
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 dataImplement strict input validation on job parameters to reject values that could cause excessive iteration, add configurable limits to loop operations in housekeeping jobs, and consider upgrading to a patched version if available from SOS.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6855 — 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-2020-6855 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