CVE-2020-6868
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 · uneditedThere is an input validation vulnerability in a PON terminal product of ZTE, which supports the creation of WAN connections through WEB management pages. The front-end limits the length of the WAN connection name that is created, but the HTTP proxy is available to be used to bypass the limitation. An attacker can exploit the vulnerability to tamper with the parameter value. This affects: ZTE F680 V9.0.10P1N6
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 confidenceInput validation vulnerability in ZTE F680 V9.0.10P1N6 where the web management interface relies on client-side JavaScript to limit WAN connection name length, but this can be bypassed using an HTTP proxy to send longer or malicious parameter values that should be validated server-side.
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= zxhn_f680v9.0.10p1n6CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Confirm device model is ZTE F680Access the device web interface or check device label/marketing to verify the model number is F680Affected if Device is not a ZTE F680 model
-
Verify firmware version is zxhn_f680v9.0.10p1n6Log into the web management interface and navigate to Status or Device Info page to view the firmware version, or use telnet/SSH if available to run 'version' or 'cat /proc/version'Affected if Firmware version is anything other than exactly zxhn_f680v9.0.10p1n6
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the device HTTP/HTTPS management page from a network-connected hostAffected if Web interface is not accessible or disabled
-
Test for server-side validation bypass on WAN connection nameUse an HTTP proxy (such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP) to intercept the WAN connection name parameter submission. Modify the parameter value to exceed the client-side length limit (typically 32-64 characters) and forward the request to the server. Observe if the longer value is accepted without server-side rejection.Affected if Server accepts and processes WAN connection name values longer than the client-side JavaScript limit, indicating missing server-side validation
A user is affected if they are running the exact firmware version zxhn_f680v9.0.10p1n6 on a ZTE F680 device, the web management interface is accessible, and the server accepts WAN connection name parameters that exceed the client-side length restrictions.
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 server-side input validation for the WAN connection name parameter on the backend to enforce length limits and sanitize input, regardless of how the request is submitted. Disable or remove the client-side-only validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6868 — 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-2020-6868 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