CVE-2020-6867
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 · uneditedZTE's SDON controller is impacted by the resource management error vulnerability. When RPC is frequently called by other applications in the case of mass traffic data in the system, it will result in no response for a long time and memory overflow risk. This affects: ZENIC ONE R22b versions V16.19.10P02SP002 and V16.19.10P02SP005.
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 confidenceA resource management error vulnerability in ZTE's ZENIC ONE SDON controller allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service. When RPC is frequently called by other applications during periods of high traffic data, the system becomes unresponsive for extended periods due to memory overflow risk. This is a classic resource exhaustion DoS 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= 6.19.10p02sp005= 16.19.10p02sp002CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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.
-
Confirm ZTE ZENIC ONE SDON controller is deployedAccess the system management interface or check system inventory to verify the installed product is ZTE ZENIC ONE SDON controller (ZENIC ONE R22b variant)Affected if Product is not ZTE ZENIC ONE SDON controller R22b variant
-
Identify installed versionCheck the system version information through the management console, CLI, or about page. Look for version strings matching '6.19.10p02sp005' or '16.19.10p02sp002' or 'R22b'Affected if Installed version equals 6.19.10p02sp005 or 16.19.10p02sp002
-
Verify RPC interface is enabledCheck system configuration files or management interface for RPC service status. Confirm the RPC interface is exposed and accepting connectionsAffected if RPC interface is enabled and accessible
-
Monitor for resource exhaustion during high trafficDuring periods of high traffic data, observe system responsiveness and memory usage. Check if the system becomes unresponsive or exhibits extended delays when RPC calls are frequentAffected if System becomes unresponsive or experiences extended delays during high traffic with frequent RPC calls
User is affected if running ZTE ZENIC ONE R22b version 6.19.10p02sp005 or 16.19.10p02sp002 with RPC enabled, and the system exhibits unresponsiveness during high traffic periods with frequent RPC activity.
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 vendor-provided patches for ZENIC ONE R22b versions V16.19.10P02SP002 and V16.19.10P02SP005, or upgrade to a patched version if available. Implement RPC call rate limiting and monitoring to detect and mitigate resource exhaustion conditions before they cause system unavailability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6867 — 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-2020-6867 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